Appeal from finding of no case to answer on allegations of aggravated trespass and failing to leave property when directed so to do by a police officer – whether ‘land in the open air’ in the section included buildings. Held: ,The District Judge misconstrued land in section 68 and was wrong to dismiss the informations … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Chivers: Admn 23 Jun 2010
Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the . .
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for aggravated trespass. Hostile protesters had entered into Millbank Tower, and ignited smoke bombs and smashed a large plate glass window from the outside. Held: Irwin J said: ‘On facts such as this, however, the mass invasion of a building and the particular persistence in remaining … Continue reading Peppersharp v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Feb 2012
The defendants had sought to demonstrate against the use of a quarry. On the day, the quarry had been announced to be closed. They were charged with disrupting activities at the site and aggravated trespass. Held: Even if the demonstrators had anticipated that no quarrying activities would be interrupted, it was clear that as trespassers … Continue reading Lucy and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Nov 1996
The information against the derendants alleged no more than that the accused had ‘unlawfully occupied the site and that they had done so with the intention specified in s.68’ of the 1994 Act. Held: The information did not disclose any offence known to the law. Section 68 makes it plain that to prove an offence … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v Barnard and Others: QBD 3 Nov 1999
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority. Held: The appeal was allowed. The debenture, although … Continue reading National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others: HL 30 Jun 2005
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use of … Continue reading Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza: HL 22 Jan 2004
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime. Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means … Continue reading Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was heard before … Continue reading Regina v Lambert: HL 5 Jul 2001
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass. Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser has done anything on the land (‘there’), apart from trespassing, with the required statutory intent? As to that, there is … Continue reading Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Mar 2013
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory authority, could order a closed material procedure for part or all of the trial of … Continue reading Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others: CA 4 May 2010
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual intercourse, with a headline ‘Strewth! What’s Harold up to with our Madge?’. The body of the article made … Continue reading Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: HL 31 Mar 1995
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
