The trial judge had omitted to give a rape jury any direction on the standard of proof. Held: The court regarded that as a serious defect, not cured by references in the speeches of counsel, but applied the proviso to the section so as to allow the conviction to stand. Citations: (1983) 77 Cr App … Continue reading Regina v Edwards: 1983
The proviso may be applied by the Court of Appeal despite the Judge’s failure to leave the issue of provocation with the jury. As a matter of law, the court in an appropriate case might apply the proviso to section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, where there had been a misdirection by a … Continue reading Regina v Cox: CACD 12 Apr 1995
There is no rule of law to say that an inadequate corroboration direction makes the use of the proviso wrong. Citations: Ind Summary 21-Feb-1994, Times 16-Mar-1994 Statutes: Criminal Appeals Act 1968 2(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87096
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights. Held: There was no requirement for a court to implement a Human Rights Court decision retrospectively to require … Continue reading Regina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders: HL 15 Nov 2002
Before arraignment, the judge had heard submissions of law on admitted facts. The judge ruled that if those admitted facts were proved or admitted in the forthcoming trial they would amount to an admission or conclusive evidence of the accused’s commission of the charged offence. The accused, on the advice of his counsel and in … Continue reading Regina v Vickers: CACD 1975
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
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained. Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on count 5 could not be regarded as safe: ‘as a matter of … Continue reading Lalchan, Regina v: CACD 27 May 2022
The defendant had been charged with attempting to obtain property by deception by fabricating his death by drowning in the sea off Miami in Florida. The final act alleged to constitute the offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English courts. Held: The charge was justiciable in England. The defendant appealed conviction on counts of … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse: HL 1977
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002
The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under the Fraud Act 2006, but in relation to events taking place before it came … Continue reading White v Regina: CACD 15 Apr 2014
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .
