Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the prosecution, and subject to disclosure requirements accordingly. The prosecution replied that the meter manufacturer specifications were protected as confidential. … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy: Admn 19 Jan 2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for speeding, saying that the magistrates had refused to order disclosure of the police video recording of the events, seeing no issue to which the tape would be relevant. Held: The defendant had no absolute right of disclosure. The court had been correct to refuse an order for its disclosure … Continue reading Green v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: Admn 10 May 2006
Interlocutory appeal under section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 against an order that, in accordance with section 44(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, (the 2003 Act) the forthcoming trial of the defendants should be conducted by a judge alone. Judges: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Citations: [2010] … Continue reading J, S, M v Regina: CACD 23 Jul 2010
Citations: [2003] EWHC 353 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Practice Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.184983
Two applications for judicial review, arising out of prosecutions for driving with a breath alcohol level in excess of the statutory limit, contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the RTA’). In both cases, following the service of a defence statement, the District Judge allowed a defence application for disclosure pursuant to … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Walsall Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 5 Dec 2019
The defendants were senior executives of BA. They made interlocutory appeals while undergoing trials for alleged price fixing under section 188 of the 2002 Act. The judge had ruled that the prosecutor need prove dishonesty only as against the defendants, and need not do so as against other parties to the transactions (similar officers of … Continue reading Regina v George and Others: CACD 28 May 2010
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
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation. Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human rights, the court had to assess whether the, first, the objective could be achieved by some alternative, less interfering, … Continue reading Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 17 Jul 2001
A police investigation into an offence not yet committed, did not count as an investigation into that offence for the purposes of setting the start date under the Act. Citations: Times 05-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 108, [1998] CLR 510 Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 1(3) Cited by: Cited – Brizzalari v … Continue reading Regina v Norfolk Stipendary Magistrates ex parte Keable: Admn 29 Jan 1998
The defendants in a forthcoming trial had applied for disclosure of surveillance tapes (some 15,000 hours) made during the investigations anticipating an application for a finding of abuse of process. Some had been served, but the prosecutor now appealed asking whether the protection of the defendants’ human rights required the disclosures. Judges: Rose VP LJ, … Continue reading Regina v Crown Prosecution Service, Re Interlocutory Application: CACD 7 Sep 2005
No Need for Direction on Circumstantial Evidence M was charged with murdering Margaret Magee in her house. no one claimed to have seen the murder and the evidence was entirely circumstantial. When he was first tried, the jury failed to reach a verdict, but at a subsequent trial he was found guilty and sentenced to … Continue reading McGreevy v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1973
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006
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
Appeal against a conviction for murder brought upon one issue, namely whether a failure by the prosecution to make proper disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 rendered the trial of the appellant unfair and the verdict unsafe. Held: The risk of injustice that a circumstantial evidence direction is designed to confront is … Continue reading Kelly v Regina: CACD 15 May 2015
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team. Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is necessary to show something that materially may cast doubt upon the safety … Continue reading Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another: Admn 4 May 2012
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003
The House considered whether the long established rule of the criminal law presuming that a child did not have a guilty mind should be set aside. Held: Doli incapax, the presumption of a child’s lack of mens rea, is still effective and good law, but a child is not capable at law without the requisite … Continue reading C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 17 Mar 1995
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having found some evidence to suggest that … Continue reading In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening): HL 11 Jun 2008
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 . .
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
