The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after retirement. Held: Leave to appeal was refused. As to any obligation on the police … Continue reading Regina v Imran, Hussain: CACD 9 Jun 1997
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong enough. At the trial, the defendant adduced the terms of that advice. The questions … Continue reading Regina v Bowden (BT): CACD 10 Feb 1999
A jury cannot convict solely on the basis of an inference, drawn under section 34, from the combination of an accused’s failure to give at interview, an explanation relied upon later at court. Additional evidence could be found not only from the prosecution case, but also from the defence. In a section 35 case however, … Continue reading Regina v Doldur: CACD 7 Dec 1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
Bowers and Millan complained that the direction given under section 34 was impermissible. The ground of complaint was that they had not relied on any fact by way of defence, but had simply put the prosecution to proof. Held: The court asked what evidence had been presented: ‘A fact relied on may, in our judgment, … Continue reading Regina v Bowers, Taylor, Millan: CACD 13 Mar 1998
The court set out the sentencing considerations for firearms offences in the light of an increase of the use of guns. Held: The level of sentencing had not sufficiently reflected the gravity of such offences. After the 1994 Act, earlier sentencing cases were not reliable as a guide. The applicable principles are: ‘(1) What sort … Continue reading Regina v Avis, T and others: CACD 16 Dec 1997
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were displaying withdrawal symptoms; the doctor who examined them had disagreed. Held: The … Continue reading Regina v Condron, Condron: CACD 17 Oct 1996
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court. Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard … Continue reading Regina v Cowan and Another: CACD 12 Oct 1995
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35. Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does that the jury must conclude that the only sensible explanation of his failure to give … Continue reading Regina v Becouarn: HL 28 Jul 2005
The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard directions to the jury on the drawing of inferences from … Continue reading Regina v Birchall: CACD 20 Jan 1998
M was convicted of possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. His defence at trial was that W was the dealer and he was merely a purchaser. He had not mentioned this to the police when questioned, on the ground (he said) that he did not want to land W in trouble. The … Continue reading Regina v Mountford: CACD 21 Dec 1998
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to disclose the warnings given to him violated the same right. Held: The … Continue reading T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: SC 18 Jun 2014
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
‘The focus of the application is on the judge’s ruling on whether to give a direction under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘a section 34 direction’) in relation to the applicant’s failure to mention in interview that the complainant ‘AB’ had fallen asleep in his car and that he … Continue reading Noor, Regina v: CACD 12 Nov 2021
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing from heroin. The judge allowed the jury the option of drawing an adverse inference from … Continue reading Condron v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 2000
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
Adverse inference – no direct questions Appeal from conviction – wrongful use of section 34 of 1994 Act after no comment interview. The defendant argued that no actual questions had been asked. Held: The appeal failed: ‘in order for the section to operate it is necessary that the defendant is being questioned under caution and … Continue reading Green, Regina v: CACD 1 Mar 2019
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications. Held: It was permissible to use special counsel, but this must genuinely … Continue reading Regina v H; Regina v C: HL 5 Feb 2004
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
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
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
