Click the case name for better results:

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005

(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution. Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European Convention, seeks to guarantee the procedural fairness of the criminal process. Though the Convention is not … Continue reading Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor): PC 28 Jun 2005

Hammond v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 13 Jan 2004

The defendant, who had since died, had been convicted of a public order offence in that standing in a street he had displayed a range of placards opposing homosexuality. He appealed saying that the finding was an unwarranted infringement of his article 9 and article 10 rights, and that the words used were not in … Continue reading Hammond v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 13 Jan 2004

Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004): CACD 27 May 2005

Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might be prescribed by a doctor, but this had been rejected. Held: The appeals failed. There was no over-arching principle … Continue reading Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004): CACD 27 May 2005

Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution): PC 11 May 2005

The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure. Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant had not received a fair trial, and the appeal was allowed. The practice of dock identification was … Continue reading Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution): PC 11 May 2005

Farrell v Alexander: HL 24 Jun 1976

The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act. Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the consolidation Act is unclear, or cannot be resolved by classical methods of construction. Self-contained statutes, whether … Continue reading Farrell v Alexander: HL 24 Jun 1976

Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements. Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, and must not allow procedural or technical failures to defeat that purpose. Courts should rather look to see … Continue reading Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002

Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005

The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005

Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region): Admn 11 Apr 2005

Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof. Held: Neither the criminal standard of proof nor the level of proof set down in Addington applied. To raise the standard … Continue reading Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region): Admn 11 Apr 2005

Teeluck and John v The State: PC 23 Mar 2005

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury. Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases had set out the law regarding such directions. The direction should always be given if the … Continue reading Teeluck and John v The State: PC 23 Mar 2005

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper: QBD 16 Feb 2005

The police applied to the court for a closure order in respect of premises they said were being used for the sale of Class A drugs. The tenant sought an adjournment, which was granted as were two later applications. On the last hearing, the police did not appear and the application was dismissed as out … Continue reading Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper: QBD 16 Feb 2005

Department for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael): CACD 3 Mar 2005

After conviction for benefits fraud, the defendant appealed a confiscation order, saying that had he made appropriate claims for state benefirs under other heads, the loss to the state would have been much less (andpound;3000 not andpound;19,000). Held: The defendant was unable to set off against the amount ordered to be paid any sum which … Continue reading Department for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael): CACD 3 Mar 2005

Tovey and Another v Regina: CACD 9 Mar 2005

Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts. Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of the defendant’s criminal behaviour. The court considered when a series of acts might properly be … Continue reading Tovey and Another v Regina: CACD 9 Mar 2005

Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and Another: CA 24 Feb 2004

Application was made to register the ‘trap grounds’ as a village green. Held: Carnwath LJ: ‘The 1965 Act created no new legal status, and no new rights or liabilities other than those resulting from the proper interpretation of section 10. Since that section only takes effect in relation to any particular land on registration, there … Continue reading Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and Another: CA 24 Feb 2004

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held (Majority): The appeal succeeded, and the judge’s order allowing the evidence to be … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd: HL 10 Feb 2005

Bradley, Regina v: CACD 14 Jan 2005

The defendant complained that his criminal record had been placed before the jury under the Act, even though the proceedings had been begun before the commencement date. Held: The provisions of the Act were procedural in nature and therefore not subject to any rule against reprospectivity. The court criticised the drafting of the Act. Judges: … Continue reading Bradley, Regina v: CACD 14 Jan 2005

George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd: QBD 2 Dec 2004

The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly defamatory and untrue. The defendants said that the articles were protected by qualified privilege, since the claimant was … Continue reading George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd: QBD 2 Dec 2004

Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 22 Nov 2004

The claimant had obtained judgment against customers of the defendant, and then freezing orders for the accounts. The defendants inadvertently or negligently allowed sums to be transferred from the accounts. The claimants sought repayment by the bank. Held: The bank was liable. ‘a duty ought to be imposed on the Bank, towards claimants who have … Continue reading Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 22 Nov 2004

Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union: SC 24 Jan 2017

Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying that the notice could be given under the … Continue reading Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union: SC 24 Jan 2017

Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 May 2005

The claimant sought increased maternity pay. Before beginning her maternity leave she had been awarded a pay increase, but it was not backdated so as to affect the period upon which the calculation of her average pay was based. The court made a detailed comparison of the regimes for protection under the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 May 2005

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones: CA 2000

A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the jaws of the bucket closed and he … Continue reading Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones: CA 2000

V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004

The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit. Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher’s complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by … Continue reading V v Addey and Stanhope School: CA 30 Jul 2004

Regina v Collard: CACD 20 May 2004

The defendant had been convicted of seven offences of making indecent images of children, having downloaded pictures from the Internet. He appealed an indeterminate order banning him from using any computer capable of connection to the Internet. Held: The indeterminate nature of the order was not objectonable, since the defendant would be able to apply … Continue reading Regina v Collard: CACD 20 May 2004

Government of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2): HL 22 Jul 2004

The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the US court had refused to allow her … Continue reading Government of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2): HL 22 Jul 2004

Attorney General’s Reference v Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003; Regina v McInerney; Regina v McLean: CACD 16 Jul 2004

The court considered appeals by the Attorney-General against sentences considered to be too lenient, and in particular where a community penalty had been imposed rather than a sentence of immediate imprisonment. Held: The Court emphasised the need for the strict care to be taken in selecting such cases, for appeal. The court should not interfere … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference v Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003; Regina v McInerney; Regina v McLean: CACD 16 Jul 2004

Regina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener: CACD 8 Jul 2004

The appellants, each convicted of murder, challenged the minimum periods of detention ordered to be served. Held: As to the starting point for sentencing, judges should have regard to the published practice directions, and not the letter from the Lord Chief Justice of 31 December 2003, which became a practice direction in 2004. As to … Continue reading Regina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener: CACD 8 Jul 2004

Regina v Parole Board, Ex Parte Watson: QBD 22 Nov 1995

The test for whether or not to recall a lifer who was free on licence is the same test as was used for his release, namely whether his detention was required for the protection of the public. Citations: Independent 22-Nov-1995 Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1991 34(4)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board, Ex Parte Watson: QBD 22 Nov 1995

Lobban, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2004

The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear. Held: In making the decision, the judge had incorrectly said that her evidence was uncontested. The errors began with discussions in … Continue reading Lobban, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2004

Strouthos v London Underground Ltd: CA 18 Mar 2004

The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits. Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or disciplinary proceedings, that the charge against the defendant or the employee facing dismissal should be … Continue reading Strouthos v London Underground Ltd: CA 18 Mar 2004

Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4): CACD 17 Mar 2004

The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US. Held: Provided some substantial element (here the deception) took place within the UK, and provided there was no offence to international comity, the court here could hear such … Continue reading Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4): CACD 17 Mar 2004

Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: CA 17 Dec 2003

The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each was of good character, and the suspicion was based solely on their opportunity to have access … Continue reading Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police: CA 17 Dec 2003

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v George Jenkins Transport Ltd: Admn 20 Nov 2003

The prosecutor Agency appealed by way of case stated against a decision refusing to allow them to admit documentary evidence. Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the court took the opportunity to say that a case stated did not need as in this case to set out the full details of some 200 informations which … Continue reading Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v George Jenkins Transport Ltd: Admn 20 Nov 2003

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order. Held: There was no absolute rule which would allow the order made. The judge had considered that if … Continue reading Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited: CA 11 Nov 2003

Menson v United Kingdom: ECHR 6 May 2003

There had been a racist attack. The victim was set on fire and killed in the street by assailants. His relatives sought compensation. However the assailants were not agents of the state and they were duly prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. No blame attached to state authorities for the killing and no breach of the state’s … Continue reading Menson v United Kingdom: ECHR 6 May 2003

Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another: HL 31 Jul 2003

The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. He wanted a consideration which would parallel the new won rights of review for … Continue reading Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another: HL 31 Jul 2003

Farnell, Regina (on Application By) v Criminal Cases Review Commission: Admn 15 Apr 2003

The appellant sought judicial review of the respondents refusal to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal. Held: The Commission had misunderstood the way in which the Court of Appeal worked, by anticipating that it would reconsider the evidence. In this case, the defendant and the court had not allowed as a serious … Continue reading Farnell, Regina (on Application By) v Criminal Cases Review Commission: Admn 15 Apr 2003

Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: … Continue reading Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar: CA 19 Jun 2003

In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries. Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, the following should be considered. First, the claimant’s case in relation to his private life in … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar: CA 19 Jun 2003

Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly: PC 11 Feb 2003

PC (The High Court of Justiciary) The minuter challenged the role of the legal adviser to the district courts in Scotland, and as to his independence. Held: The legal adviser was not subject to the same system of appointments as the justices. However the system provided for a right of appeal (section 175) on questions … Continue reading Clark (Procurator Fiscal, Kirkcaldy) v Kelly: PC 11 Feb 2003

Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary: CACD 22 Nov 2002

The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable. Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary disclosure, where a defence statement might be of assistance to the co-defendants. Actual disclosure remained for … Continue reading Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary: CACD 22 Nov 2002

Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 1995

The court was concerned with the refusal of the magistrates to make a compensation order after a plea of guilty to a statutory nuisance. The magistrates had also refused to award costs of the adjourned hearing at which compensation had been sought. Held: The court declined to interfere with the refusal of the compensation, but … Continue reading Davenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 17 Mar 1995

Davies v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jul 2002

The applicant had been subject to applications for his disqualification from acting as a company director. The Secretary of State waited until the last day before issuing proceedings, and the proceedings were then delayed another three years pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against others. The government responded that the proceedings were complex, and the … Continue reading Davies v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jul 2002

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for an Order etc: SCS 29 Aug 2000

The court drew attention to the difference between the situation where the court itself makes inquiries as to events in the jury retiring room with the aim of bringing the court in question into contempt and that where it makes inquiries with the aim of trying to ensure that justice does not miscarry: ‘we have … Continue reading The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for an Order etc: SCS 29 Aug 2000

Reyes v The Queen: PC 11 Mar 2002

(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading treatment, and infringed his human rights under the constitution. Held: The crime of murder embraced … Continue reading Reyes v The Queen: PC 11 Mar 2002

Dyer v Watson and Burrows: PC 29 Jan 2002

Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay. Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing rights, which could be broken notwithstanding absence of effect on the fairness of the trial. The threshold for delay was high, but once established … Continue reading Dyer v Watson and Burrows: PC 29 Jan 2002

Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford: HL 24 Jan 2002

Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came … Continue reading Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford: HL 24 Jan 2002

Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd: QBD 30 Nov 2001

The applicant had been severely injured at work. He was an epileptic, and had not disclosed his condition to his employers, who because of the safety aspects of the work on oil rigs could not have employed him if he had disclosed the sickness. The employers resisted payment of damages for loss of earnings and … Continue reading Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd: QBD 30 Nov 2001

Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014

Regina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners: Admn 18 Oct 2001

The function of the Director’s office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act could not be re-interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act to … Continue reading Regina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners: Admn 18 Oct 2001

Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, they had acted contrac bonos mores. They complained that the … Continue reading Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

Wingrove v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1996

The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. Held: The provision of a system which would allow … Continue reading Wingrove v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1996

Buckley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Sep 1996

The Commission had concluded, by a narrow majority, that the measures taken by the respondent in refusing planning permission and enforcing planning orders were excessive and disproportionate, even allowing a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities. The Commission found that the interests of the applicant outweighed the general interest. The Court, also by … Continue reading Buckley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Sep 1996

Bryan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Nov 1995

Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that planning permission should be granted), (b) (that there had been no breach of planning control) and … Continue reading Bryan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Nov 1995

Hoekstra and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate High Court of Justiciary: PC 26 Oct 2000

The Privy Council has no standing to act as a general court of appeal on Scottish law. The jurisdiction given to it by the Act, was limited as prescribed by the Act to what are called devolution issues, issues related to the acts of devolution. Not all constitutional issues were indeed devolution issues.Save for devolution … Continue reading Hoekstra and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate High Court of Justiciary: PC 26 Oct 2000

Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another: PC 2 Nov 1993

(Jamaica) A five year delay in execution is excessive, and can itself amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. ‘There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for many years. What gives rise to this instinctive revulsion? The answer can only be our … Continue reading Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another: PC 2 Nov 1993

Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others: PC 12 Jun 1996

(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in 1994. He complained that the delay was an abuse, and his appeal succeeded. The prosecutor now … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others: PC 12 Jun 1996

Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A: HL 16 Mar 2000

A seven month old child had been injured, but it was not possible to establish whether this had taken place whilst with her parents or with a child minder. The Council brought care proceedings also for the minder’s own child B. Held: Even though the parents could not be held responsible, the threshold conditions which … Continue reading Lancashire County Council and Another v B and Others; Lancashire County Council v A: HL 16 Mar 2000

Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole: HL 24 Jul 1997

The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is not in conformity with the principles relating to disclosure established … Continue reading Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole: HL 24 Jul 1997

Sinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc: CA 12 Dec 2000

The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution. Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal charge against him was surprising in the circumstances. Judges: Otton, Jonathan Parker LJJ Citations: [2000] … Continue reading Sinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc: CA 12 Dec 2000

Regina – v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte August; Similar: CA 18 Dec 2000

For the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, a juvenile but willing participant in an act of buggery, is not deemed to be a victim of a crime of violence. The purpose of the section is to disapprove of such activity in general, and therefore neither participants is to be seen as a victim. … Continue reading Regina – v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte August; Similar: CA 18 Dec 2000

Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2): CA 8 Jun 2000

The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs and the letter was disclosed to them. After their acquittal they brought a claim for libel based on … Continue reading Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2): CA 8 Jun 2000

Gregory v Portsmouth City Council: HL 10 Feb 2000

Disciplinary proceedings had been taken by the local authority against Mr Gregory, a council member, after allegations had been made that he had failed to declare conflicts of interest, and that he had used confidential information to secure a personal financial advantage. He had been found to have breached the relevant code of practice and … Continue reading Gregory v Portsmouth City Council: HL 10 Feb 2000

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue is whether an employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 … Continue reading Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections: Admn 31 Mar 2000

At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to put the evidence. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal … Continue reading Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections: Admn 31 Mar 2000

Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Jul 1999

The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the failure to adduce that evidence on the part of the prosecution is simply an oversight … Continue reading Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Jul 1999

Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 6 Nov 2001

A bare order restricting reporting under the section was too vague to allow a later prosecution for contempt. Crook had established that the court must specify just what restrictions are to apply. Judges: Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Newman Citations: Times 26-Nov-2001, [2002] EMLR 12 Statutes: Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39(1) 39(2) … Continue reading Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 6 Nov 2001

Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte T, a Firm of Solicitors: Admn 25 Jun 1997

The firm of solicitors making an application for judicial review of the decision of the Board to institute criminal proceedings against them sought anonymity, saying that procedure which might prove them innocent would nevertheless damage their practice. Held: The overriding principle was for openness of proceedings. Citations: [1997] EWHC Admin 593 Links: Bailii Citing: See … Continue reading Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte T, a Firm of Solicitors: Admn 25 Jun 1997

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Finninvest Spa and Others: QBD 23 Oct 1996

The referral of an approach from the Italian authorities for help to the Serious Fraud Office was not wrong. Where assistance is being given to an authority abroad in relation to an on-going investigation both the letter of request and the draft warrant are likely of necessity to be drawn in wide terms. The 1990 … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Finninvest Spa and Others: QBD 23 Oct 1996

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2): QBD 29 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice. A … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2): QBD 29 Nov 1994

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield: Admn 25 Mar 1997

The applicants for judicial review had each been convicted and sentenced for sex offences. Each maintained his innocence, and now complained that that fact had prejudiced decisions as to early release on parole and as to their categorisation. Held: The court identified four issues (1) The Parole Board must assume the prisoner’s guilt of the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hepworth, Fenton-Palmer and Baldonzy and Regina v Parole Board ex parte Winfield: Admn 25 Mar 1997

Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina: CACD 9 Feb 2001

The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of the judge’s direction as to the the conclusions to be drawn by the jury from his silence. … Continue reading Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina: CACD 9 Feb 2001

Abbas Kassimali Gokal v Serious Fraud Office: CA 16 Mar 2001

The defendant was convicted of an offence to which section 15 of the Theft Act did not apply. It involved a deception of the auditors of BCCI in concealing a number of substantial loans made to a group of companies run by the defendant. Buxton J had considered that Rees was confined to its own … Continue reading Abbas Kassimali Gokal v Serious Fraud Office: CA 16 Mar 2001

Regina v Brown (Winston): HL 20 Feb 1997

The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them. Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of material which might be used to attack the credibility of defence witnesses. Fairness, so far … Continue reading Regina v Brown (Winston): HL 20 Feb 1997

Regina v Thompson and others: CACD 1995

The court considered the circumstances under which an accused could call in aid the convictions of a co-defendant: Held: It was fundamental that it is not normally relevant to enquire into a defendant’s previous character or to ask questions which tend to show that he has previously committed some criminal offence. A defendant is always … Continue reading Regina v Thompson and others: CACD 1995

Regina v Clegg: HL 25 Jan 1995

The defendant was a soldier on patrol in Northern Ireland. He was convicted of the murder of the passenger and attempted murder of the driver of a stolen car. He said he had fired in self defence. The Court of Appeal had rejected his appeal saying that on the facts it had been a grossly … Continue reading Regina v Clegg: HL 25 Jan 1995

Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua: HL 6 Jul 1995

The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided with accommodation in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1985 Act was … Continue reading Regina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua: HL 6 Jul 1995

Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact. Citations: Times 02-Jul-1996, Appeal No 40 of 1995, Appeal No 40 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 3, [1996] UKPC 18, [2012] ECHR 1636, [2012] ECHR 1635, [2012] ECHR 1637, [1990] ECHR 34, [2009] ECHR 619, [1980] … Continue reading Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

Elliott (Angus Gordon) v HM Advocate: HCJ 24 Mar 1995

New evidence on an appeal was admissible only in accordance with the Act. Judges: Lord Justice Clerk Ross Citations: Times 16-May-1995, 1995 JC 95, [1995] ScotHC HCJ – 2, 1995 SLT 612, 1995 SCCR 280 Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 228(2) Cited by: Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011 The … Continue reading Elliott (Angus Gordon) v HM Advocate: HCJ 24 Mar 1995

Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) A court’s insistence that a submission of no case to answer must be made in the presence of jury was unfair. When considering submissions of no case to answer, the judge should invite the jury to retire and, if he decided to reject the plea, he should say nothing to the jury about it. … Continue reading Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham: Admn 20 Feb 2001

The council received a report by a housing trust about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on an estate within the Borough, and after investigating applied for an anti-social behaviour order. Some witness statements contained first hand evidence, but the application was primarily based on hearsay evidence contained in records of … Continue reading Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham: Admn 20 Feb 2001

Benham v United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 1995

Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by magistrates. The question was whether or not they had acted in excess of jurisdiction. … Continue reading Benham v United Kingdom: ECHR 8 Feb 1995

Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Oct 2016

The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been rejected at first instance and at the court of appeal. Held: The taxpayer’s appeal … Continue reading Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 19 Oct 2016

H v A (No2): FD 17 Sep 2015

The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment. Held: The judgment case should be published in its original format. The court identified: ‘the risk of so called ‘jigsaw identification’ in cases where the … Continue reading H v A (No2): FD 17 Sep 2015

Core Issues Trust v Transport for London: Admn 22 Mar 2013

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to be based on the resondent’s policies. The respondent … Continue reading Core Issues Trust v Transport for London: Admn 22 Mar 2013

Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation: FD 25 Jul 2000

K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well and did not wish to return. The … Continue reading Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation: FD 25 Jul 2000

Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening): CA 8 Mar 2005

The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the VAT on works carried out on his own property. Because of the delay which … Continue reading Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening): CA 8 Mar 2005

Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure): FD 19 Mar 2004

The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings be in public. Held: The applicant and her solicitors had already made significant … Continue reading Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure): FD 19 Mar 2004

Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 22 Jul 2005

The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina. Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. The court gave guidance on the practice to be followed, but it was not correct for the … Continue reading Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court: Admn 22 Jul 2005