Jones, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2017
Citations: [2017] EWCA Crim 317 Links: Bailii Statutes: Theft Act 1968 8(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Sentencing Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.584243
Citations: [2017] EWCA Crim 317 Links: Bailii Statutes: Theft Act 1968 8(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Sentencing Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.584243
The claimants appealed against dismissal of their claim for damages under the 1998 Act. The house had been searched under warrant. They said that the constable obtaining the warrant had acted on information he knew or ought to have known was false. The officer had acted on the basis of information provided through Crimestoppers, but … Continue reading Williams v Dyfed and Powys Police: CA 22 Nov 2010
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference. Held: Organ removal when a post mortem had been ordered by the coroner was not tortious. In English law there … Continue reading AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004
The defendant had been charged under s 8(1) and s 25(1) of the 1968 Act with robbery and going equipped for stealing. A robbery had been committed and the accused were later found in possession of articles fit for use in a robbery. Held: Browne J said: ‘In our view, to establish an offence under … Continue reading Regina v Ellames: CACD 1974
The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international borders, if he had committed the acts alleged in the UK an offence would not have been committed, since the funds … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman: QBD 30 Mar 1988
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .