Click the case name for better results:

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

Regina v Stanley: CACD 8 Dec 1998

A count on an indictment alleging VAT offences which included charges both of understating outputs and making false input claims was defective in not allowing a jury to say clearly of which offence the accused was guilty. ‘the Court of Appeal had given a wide meaning to the word ‘defective’ in section 5(1) so as … Continue reading Regina v Stanley: CACD 8 Dec 1998

Regina v Hemmings; Regina v Miller; Regina v Hoines: CACD 15 Oct 1999

On a re-trial, it remains open to the judge to amend the indictment. Nothing in the Act takes away his powers to do so within the confines set out by the Act. Here a conspiracy charge had been replaced by separate charges of theft. The judge retained his powers under the Indictments Act, and this … Continue reading Regina v Hemmings; Regina v Miller; Regina v Hoines: CACD 15 Oct 1999

Regina v Palmer: CACD 10 Apr 2002

At his trial the judge had added another defendant to the indictment, on the basis that the indictment was defective under the Act. The defendant appealed his conviction. Held: The word ‘defective’ when used within the section included the idea of ‘lack’ or ‘want’, and such an amendment was permissible where no injustice would be … Continue reading Regina v Palmer: CACD 10 Apr 2002

Mote v Regina: CACD 21 Dec 2007

The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. Held: There had been no abuse of process in prosecuting the defendant whilst he was a member … Continue reading Mote v Regina: CACD 21 Dec 2007

Regina v Alibhai and Others: CACD 30 Mar 2004

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant whose evidence had contained many demonstrable lies. Held: Longmore LJ said: ‘the Crown does have obligations in respect of material in the hands … Continue reading Regina v Alibhai and Others: CACD 30 Mar 2004

Toner v Regina: CACD 15 Mar 2019

Appeal against refusal of defendant’s application for separate trials of sets of allegations of different offences allegedly committed 24 years apart. Held: Not allowed. Amendments to the rules allowed such trials where evidence of commission of one set of offences might be admissible as evidence of bad character on the other offence. However it would … Continue reading Toner v Regina: CACD 15 Mar 2019

Regina v Wells: CACD 14 Dec 1994

Amendments to a bill of indictment are not affected or restricted by the later Act. Citations: Ind Summary 23-Jan-1995, Times 14-Dec-1994 Statutes: Indictments Act 1915, Administration of Justice Act 1933 2(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88285

Regina v Johal and Ram: 1972

Ashworth J said: ‘The argument for the appellants appeared to involve the proposition that an indictment, in order to be defective, must be one which in law did not charge any offence at all and therefore is bad on the face of it. We do not take that view. In our opinion, any alteration in … Continue reading Regina v Johal and Ram: 1972

Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: HL 1971

Two offences can constitute a series of offences, but there has to be some nexus between the offences. Lord Pearson said: ‘In my opinion, however, it is important to notice that there has to be a series of offences of a similar character. For this purpose there has to be some nexus between the offences. … Continue reading Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: HL 1971

Rex v Pople; Rex v Smith: 1950

‘any alteration [of an indictment] in matters of description, and probably in many other respects, may be made in order to meet the evidence in the case as long as the amendment causes no injustice to the accused person’. Citations: [1951] 1 KB 53, (1950) 34 Cr App R 168 Statutes: Indictments Act 1915 5 … Continue reading Rex v Pople; Rex v Smith: 1950

Regina v Radley: 1973

Lord Widgery CJ ‘one ought to give a fairly liberal meaning to the language of section 5’ Judges: Lord Widgery CJ Citations: (1973) 58 Cr App R 396 Statutes: Indictments Act 1915 5 Citing: Approved – Rex v Pople; Rex v Smith 1950 ‘any alteration [of an indictment] in matters of description, and probably in … Continue reading Regina v Radley: 1973

Leeks, Regina v: CACD 6 Jul 2009

Application for leave to appeal against conviction – validity of a count which was added to an indictment without the court making an order for amendment as required by section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915. [2009] EWCA Crim 1612, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 5, [2010] Crim LR 641, [2010] RTR 16 Bailii Indictments … Continue reading Leeks, Regina v: CACD 6 Jul 2009

Regina v Christou (George): HL 10 May 1996

Separate sex offence charges may be tried together even though the evidence is not to be allowed to be accumulated as between the offences. While the question of the admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence in relation to various counts joined in . .

Regina v Newland: CACD 1988

The trial had proceeded on an indictment which was invalid because it improperly contained unrelated counts. The defendant having pleaded guilty appealed.
Held: The proviso could not be applied, and the appeal must succeed. While recognising . .

Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1964

Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict. Held: The majority identified a narrow principle of autrefois, applicable only where the … Continue reading Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1964