Click the case name for better results:

Re S 36 Criminal Justice Act 1972; Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2002: CACD 14 Oct 2002

The court was asked: ‘Whether the common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made, not to defeat what the witness believes to be the ends of justice, or not to procure what the witness believes to be a false verdict.’ Photographs had been taken of … Continue reading Re S 36 Criminal Justice Act 1972; Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2002: CACD 14 Oct 2002

Regina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972): CACD 8 May 2003

The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s wife. The prosecution considered she would not be a reliable witness, and did not call her. Other evidence being inadmissible, the defendant was acquitted. The AG appealed. Held: There is no rider in law to the res gestae exception disapplying the exception if better (or … Continue reading Regina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972): CACD 8 May 2003

Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: IHCS 9 Feb 2000

The petitioner appealed a refusal of his claim for compensation. He was a serving police officer injured whilst arresting an offender. He had retired on medical grounds and received pensions, which the Board found deductible from any award reducing his claim below the minimum. The relative scheme sought to award damages on a basis comparable … Continue reading Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board: IHCS 9 Feb 2000

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004): CACD 22 Apr 2005

The defendant was accused of having racially abused the complainant by referring to him as an ‘immigrant doctor’ before the assault. The trial judge had held that the word ‘immigrant’ was so wide in its possible application as not to be capable of constituting racial abuse. Held: Whether such words constituted racial agravation in the … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004): CACD 22 Apr 2005

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000): CACD 6 Jun 2001

Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without a licence. The company had argued that no recovery process was involved, and therefore it was not waste … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000): CACD 6 Jun 2001

Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 2001): CACD 11 Jul 2002

The defendants were accused under both the 1981 Act or the 1968 Act of use a false instrument with intent to defraud. They had been acquitted after a ruling from the judge that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove lack of entitlement in the defendant of what was sought to be obtained. The … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 2001): CACD 11 Jul 2002

Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order: HL 17 Jun 2009

An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order could properly be made, and said that in any event it should be discharged. Held: … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order: HL 17 Jun 2009

Regina v Russell-Jones: CACD 1995

The Crown cannot be required to adduce evidence which (or to tender for cross-examination a witness whose evidence) is not capable of belief: ‘. . . the prosecution ought normally to call or offer to call all the witnesses who give direct evidence of the primary facts of the case, unless for good reason, in … Continue reading Regina v Russell-Jones: CACD 1995

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore: HL 1971

Test for police protection need The court considered the degree of risk to an individual which should give rise to a duty on the police to protect him under article 2. Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords, bearing in mind the relative gravity of the consequences of the court’s expectation being falsified either in one … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Fernandez: Fernandez v Government of Singapore: HL 1971

Regina v Coutts: HL 19 Jul 2006

The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent duty to leave that option to the jury. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge should have left a manslaughter … Continue reading Regina v Coutts: HL 19 Jul 2006

Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017

The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political persecution. The defendants now appealed from rejection of the defendants’ claim to state immunity and … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others: SC 17 Jan 2017

Regina v James NJ: CACD 17 Jun 1999

The court admitted in evidence, by applying the res gestae rule, a statement of the defendant’s co-accused. Citations: [1999] EWCA Crim 1686 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Regina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) CACD 8-May-2003 The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s … Continue reading Regina v James NJ: CACD 17 Jun 1999

Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 1999: CACD 15 Feb 2000

The court’s opinion was sought in relation to two questions referred by the Attorney General under s36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972: 1. can a defendant be properly convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence in the absence of evidence as to that defendant’s state of mind? 2. can a non-human defendant be convicted of … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 1999: CACD 15 Feb 2000

Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 Jun 2003

The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection while he was in prison. He had not eventually been relied upon as a witness. Held: … Continue reading Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 18 Jun 2003

Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray: QBD 15 Dec 1997

The defendant sought judicial review of his court-martial and of the confirming officers. He said the court should have heard that he committed the offence whist intixicated after taking an anti-malarial drug. The court dd not explain why it had found no causal connection beween the treatment and the offence. Held: There is no over-riding … Continue reading Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray: QBD 15 Dec 1997

Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions; Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Mar 2000

For possession of an indecent image of a child to be proved, it was necessary to establish some knowledge of its existence. Images stored without the defendant’s knowledge by browser software in a hidden cache, of which he was also unaware, were not such, and a conviction was quashed. The situation was akin to a … Continue reading Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions; Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Mar 2000

Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke: QBD 3 Apr 1996

Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation. Held: Compensation should be awarded for the period from the date of the notice until the date of the hearing. Where however the proceedings … Continue reading Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke: QBD 3 Apr 1996

Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 24 Jul 2013

The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental Health Review Tribunal ‘MHRT’ under section 67(1) of the Mental … Continue reading Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 24 Jul 2013

National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others: HL 30 Jun 2005

Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority. Held: The appeal was allowed. The debenture, although … Continue reading National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others: HL 30 Jun 2005

Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were accordingly justified in law. Held: The law on … Continue reading Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

Regina v Kansal (2): HL 29 Nov 2001

The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act. Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433. The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective effect of Human Rights decisions in appeal cases may have been incorrect, but will be followed. … Continue reading Regina v Kansal (2): HL 29 Nov 2001

Barnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Feb 2015

Admission of hearsay evidence The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay. Held: Fulford LJ said: ‘Although the court has a cardinal responsibility to ensure that a defendant … Continue reading Barnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Feb 2015

Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another: CACD 19 Sep 2014

The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered into corrupt agreemets to boost sales, sweetener payments being said to have been made by their agents. They complained that … Continue reading Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another: CACD 19 Sep 2014

Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994

Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an advocate has to make decisions quickly and under … Continue reading Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd: CA 26 Jan 1994

Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Mar 2013

The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass. Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser has done anything on the land (‘there’), apart from trespassing, with the required statutory intent? As to that, there is … Continue reading Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Mar 2013

Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others: SC 13 Jul 2011

The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the public under a closed material procedure. It argued that whilst the need for … Continue reading Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others: SC 13 Jul 2011

Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire: HL 13 Dec 2006

The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. The officer acted saying that he feared a breach of the peace … Continue reading Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire: HL 13 Dec 2006

Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd: CA 28 Jul 1944

Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers. Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered the circumstances in which it could depart from a … Continue reading Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd: CA 28 Jul 1944

Asch v Austria: ECHR 26 Apr 1991

There was no violation of Article 6 where the statement of a co-habitee was read at the trial without her being called to give evidence but, in Austrian law, a co-habitee cannot be compelled to be a witness and the court said that the right on which . .