New procedures for judges considering an application for a voluntary bill of indictment. The rules provide for compliance with the acts and rules governing such bills, and detailed disclosure of charges refused by magistrates, of the evidence which brought the bill within the rules. It should be for exceptional considerations of justice not administrative convenience. … Continue reading Practice Direction (Crime: Voluntary Bills): LCJ 5 Aug 1999
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
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The NSW statute required that an indictment should be signed by any one of a number of persons specified in the section, including a person authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions to sign indictments, and empowered the DPP by order in writing to authorise persons to sign indictments … Continue reading Regina v Janceski: 18 Aug 2005
A High Court judge had given leave to prefer a voluntary bill against the appellant, who was arraigned on six counts in the voluntary bill. He pleaded not guilty, was convicted on four counts and was sentenced. Relying on section 2 of the 1933 Act, he appealed saying that the voluntary bill had never been … Continue reading Regina v Morais: CACD 1988
The defendant appealed after charges were added to the indictment after committal which related to matters arising after that committal. Judges: Thomas LJ, Silber, Sharp JJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Crim 102 Links: Bailii Statutes: Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 32 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430096
The defendant appealed saying that after committal, the trial had proceeded on the basis of a voluntary bill of indictment, and he had been convicted on his own plea. He now appealed saying that the bill had not been signed as required. Held: The court ordered a venire de novo so that the case would … Continue reading Regina v Price: CACD 6 Nov 1985
Judges: Sir Brian Leveson P, Phillips, Edis JJ Citations: [2018] EWCA Crim 2485, [2019] 1 Cr App R 10, [2018] WLR(D) 691, [2019] 1 WLR 966 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.630980
The court considered whether to order a defamation trial to be heard by judge alone, rather than before a jury. Held: The criterion that the trial requires a prolonged examination of documents is basic and must be strictly satisfied, and it is not enough merely to show that the trial will be long and complicated. … Continue reading Rothermere v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 1973
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence. Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which provided for a bill of indictment (which had of itself no legal standing save as … Continue reading Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid: HL 6 Feb 2008
The defendant appealed saying that the court clerk had signed the indictment in the wrong place. Held: The signature had been intended to validate the indictment. The appeal failed. Citations: (1989) 90 Cr App R 450 Statutes: Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 1 2, Indictment (Rules) 1971 (1971 No 1253) 4(1) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Regina v Laming: CACD 1989
The defendant was committed for trial on seven charges of fraud. An eighth was then added under a voluntary bill of indictment, and a circuit judge confirmed a new indictment with all the eight charges. He appealed. Held: His appeal succeeded. One indictment could be amended to include the other charges, but there was no … Continue reading Regina v Cairns: CACD 1983
The House considered what was required to establish an ‘intent to defraud’. Held: Lord Radcliffe said: ‘Now, I think that there are one or two things that can be said with confidence about the meaning of this word ‘ defraud ‘. It requires a person as its object: that is, defrauding involves doing something to … Continue reading Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1961
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. The Court of Appeal had considered Rookes -v- Barnard to have been … Continue reading Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another: HL 23 Feb 1972
The defendant appealed saying that the prosecution had broken the principle ‘that it is only once that an indictment can be preferred upon the basis of one committal’. Held: The trial had taken place upon an invalid indictment not properly founded on a committal nor preferred by leave of a High Court judge and the … Continue reading Regina v Thompson: 1975
The court faced an application by the SFO for a voluntary bill of indictment. Similar charges against the defendants had been discharged. The allegations involved very substantial alleged frauds. Fulford LJ [2014] EWHC 3803 (QB) Bailii Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)(b) England and Wales Citing: Cited – Regina (on the Application of) … Continue reading Serious Fraud Office v Evans and Others: QBD 14 Nov 2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault considered at an old style committal hearing when a Stipendiary Magistrate had ordered a stay of the … Continue reading Gadd, Regina v: QBD 10 Oct 2014
The claimants in a defamation case made an interlocutory appeal against an order for trial by judge alone. The parties had agreed for trial by jury, but the defendants made a late application for trial by judge alone. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The right to a trial by jury is a constitutional right subject … Continue reading Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others: CA 29 Jun 2010
The defendants appealed, complaining of defects in the commital procedure.
Held: The proceedings committing the defendants for trial were so defective that there was no lawful committal. It followed that the document purporting to be an . .
The court considered a claim that the indictment was invalid.
Held: Peter Pain J said: ‘It seems to us that it is impossible for a criminal trial to start without there being a valid indictment to which the defendant can plead, and that the . .
The Court recalled the fundamental distinction between the preferment of a bill of indictment and the signing of the bill: it is the signing of the bill which converts it into an indictment. The court then accepted that the proper officer had . .
