Category: Crime

Regina v Stephenson: CACD 1979

The defendant sought to sleep in a hollow in a haystack. He lit a fire, to keep warm, which set fire to the stack. He appealed against his conviction under the 1971 Act. He had a long history of schizophrenia and may not have had the same ability to foresee or appreciate risks as the mentally normal person.
Held: The court considered the definition of recklessness in the Law Commission’s Working Paper No 31, academic authority and the subjective approach to recklessness in Herrington. The 1971 Act intended to continue the legal meaning as described in Kenny and followed in Cunningham ‘What then must the prosecution prove in order to bring home the charge of arson in circumstances such as the present? They must prove that (1) the defendant deliberately committed some act which caused the damage to property alleged or part of such damage; (2) the defendant had no lawful excuse for causing the damage; these two requirements will in the ordinary case not be in issue; (3) the defendant either (a) intended to cause the damage to the property, or (b) was reckless as to whether the property was damaged or not. A man is reckless when he carries out the deliberate act appreciating that there is a risk that damage to property may result from his act. It is however not the taking of every risk which could properly be classed as reckless. The risk must be one which it is in all the circumstances unreasonable for him to take. Proof of the requisite knowledge in the mind of the defendant will in most cases present little difficulty. The fact that the risk of some damage would have been obvious to anyone in his right mind in the position of the defendant is not conclusive proof of the defendant’s knowledge, but it may well be and in many cases doubtless will be a matter which will drive the jury to the conclusion that the defendant himself must have appreciated the risk.’

Judges:

Geoffrey Lane LJ, Ackner and Watkins JJ

Citations:

[1979] QB 695, [1979] EWCA Crim 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(1) 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Cited – Regina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police v Caldwell HL 19-Mar-1981
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.186786

Regina v Halloren: CACD 27 Jan 2004

The defendant had been convicted of making indecent photographs of children, and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment. The judge had ordered a restraining order without limit of time to prevent him accessing the internet save from a place of work. He appealed.
Held: There had been no positive evidence to support the need for a restraining order, and the order was set aside. If the Crown wished to seek such an order they must provide the court with evidnce upon which it could be based.

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-2004

Statutes:

Sex Offenders Act 1997 5A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.193465

Regina v Murphy: CACD 18 Jun 2002

The defendant appealed a conviction for possession of drugs. Having found himself in possession of some cannabis, he had dug a hole in the ground and buried it. He appealed an order from the judge that he was not entitled to rely on the defence of having destroyed it.
Held: The judge was correct. It was not enough that natural forces might destroy the drugs where he had put them. ‘Destruction’ within the section required something rather more final.

Judges:

Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Wright and Judge Hyam

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-2002, Gazette 08-Aug-2002

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 5(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.174252

Lord Advocate v Dean: HCJ 24 Nov 2016

Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young, Lady Clark of Calton

Citations:

[2016] ScotHC HCJAC – 117, 2017 SCCR 17, 2017 SCL 170, 2016 GWD 38-672, 2017 SLT 121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Dean v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 23-Sep-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .

Cited by:

Leave refused (2) – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.577920

Dean v The Lord Advocate and Another: HCJ 23 Sep 2016

Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused

Citations:

[2016] ScotHC HCJAC – 83, 2017 SCCR 17, 2016 GWD 38-672, 2017 SCL 170, 2017 SLT 121

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Lord Advocate v Dean HCJ 24-Nov-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .
Leave refused – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.577887

A and B, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 14 Jun 2017

The court was asked: ‘Was it unlawful for the Secretary of State for Health, the respondent, who had power to make provisions for the functioning of the National Health Service in England, to have failed to make a provision which would have enabled women who were citizens of the UK, but who were usually resident in Northern Ireland, to undergo a termination of pregnancy under the NHS in England free of charge?’
Held: (Hale and Kerr LL dissenting) The appeal failed. Though the Justices expressed a personal sympathy, the scheme created separate health systems for the four countries of the UK. The court had to respect choices made by the democratically elected authorities in Northern Ireland not to fund abortion services.
The human rights challenge fails as the difference in treatment was justified. The respondent’s decision as to whether to provide free abortion services fell within the scope of article 8. The respondent treated women usually resident in England differently from women who, although UK citizens, were usually resident in Northern Ireland. A difference of treatment between UK citizens present in England on the grounds of usual residence falls within the scope of ‘other status’ for the purposes of article 14. The respondent’s loyalty to the devolved scheme for health services in Northern Ireland on abortion services was rationally connected to his decision not to make the direction sought by the appellants. He could not have reached any decision less intrusive upon the article 8 rights of the appellants. The respondent’s decision struck a fair balance between the appellants’ rights and the interests of the UK community as a whole and, accordingly, was justified. The difference in treatment did not amount to discrimination
Lord Kerr (with Lady Hale), dissenting, said that though the aim in section 1 of the 2006 Act relating to the improvement of physical and mental health is limited to the people of England, the aim in section 1(1)(b) relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness is not limited in the same way. Women in Northern Ireland seeking an abortion in England are being treated ‘for the prevention . . of illness’ under section 1(1)(b) as allowing an unwanted pregnancy to continue to term carries a risk of physical or mental injury. In failing to exercise his power, the respondent was wrong to believe that his section 3 duties were confined to the people of England.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 41, 156 BMLR 1, [2017] 1 WLR 2492, [2017] HRLR 9, [2017] 4 All ER 353, (2017) 156 BMLR 1, [2017] Med LR 347, UKSC 2015/0220

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

National Health Service Act 2006, National Health Service (Functions of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts and Administration Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002 3(7), Health and Social Care Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – YA, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Health CA 30-Mar-2009
The applicant was a failed asylum seeker who sought judicial review of a decision of an NHS Trust not to provide him with free care. The court was asked for guidance as to whether a health trust had a discretion to provide free health care to a . .
Cited – The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re Judicial Review QBNI 30-Nov-2015
The Court concludes that in Northern Ireland:
(i) There is no general right to abortion whether under the common law or under statute.
(ii) The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) has legal standing under the . .
Appeal from – A (A Child) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 22-Jul-2015
The court considered an appeal from a refusal of judicial review of a decision not to provide free abortion services in England to women from Northern Ireland.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
At First Instance – A and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 8-May-2014
This claim concerns the lawfulness of the extent of and limitations on the provision of abortion services by the National Heath Service (‘NHS’) in England to a person present in England but ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. There are two . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Thlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The applicant was a Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted of insubordination under the Military Criminal Code for refusing to wear a military uniform at a time of general mobilisation. He was subsequently refused appointment as a . .
Cited – Tigere, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 29-Jul-2015
After increasing university fees, the student loan system was part funded by the government. They introduced limits to the availability of such loans, and a student must have been lawfully ordinarily resident in the UK for three years before the day . .
Cited – Magee v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jun-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+6; Pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; . .
Cited – Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
Cited – BS v Spain ECHR 24-Jul-2012
A woman who was black and a prostitute established a ground of discrimination contrary to article 14 by reference to the interaction of all three factors . .
Cited – RR v Poland ECHR 26-May-2011
The applicant learned of possible malformation of the foetus from an ultrasound at the 18-week stage. Her repeated requests for genetic tests were met with procrastination, confusion and a lack of proper counselling and information, and it was not . .
Cited – Stec and Others v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2006
(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination.
Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences . .
Cited – A, B And C v Ireland ECHR 16-Dec-2010
Grand Chamber – The Court considered the prohibition of abortion in Ireland: ‘The first two applicants principally complained under Article 8 about, inter alia, the prohibition of abortion for health and well-being reasons in Ireland and the third . .
Cited – Carson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) The court ruled admissible claims against the United Kingdom by 13 persons entitled to British State pensions for violation of article 14 of the Convention in combination with article 1 of the First Protocol. All the claimants had . .
Cited – Dudgeon v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1981
ECHR (Plenary Court) Legislation in Northern Ireland that criminalised homosexual behaviour which was lawful in the rest of the UK.
Held: There was a violation of article 8, but it was not necessary to . .
Cited – Nelson v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
A complaint of discrimination was made based on differences between the laws governing remission and parole in Scotland and England.
Held: The complaint was dismissed. The differences were ‘not related in any way to the personal status of the . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Cited – P v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-1988
The Commission stated: ‘in many, if not all, of the contracting states, different legal jurisdictions exist in different geographical areas within the state (eg cantons, communes, Lander, etc) . . the mere existence of variations between such . .
Cited – Alatulkkila and Others v Finland ECHR 28-Jul-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14+P1-1. . .
Cited – Posti and Rahko v Finland ECHR 24-Sep-2002
Hudoc Two fishermen who operated under leases granted by the Finnish state complained that restrictions imposed by the government to safeguard fish stocks had failed to strike a fair balance under A1P1. The court . .
Cited – Magee v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jun-2000
The denial of access to a solicitor for a suspect before interrogation was a breach of the right to a fair hearing. The breach was so fundamental as to irretrievably prejudice the rights of a defendant. The article might be expressed to refer to . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Mar-1990
The Commission noted that there was no indication that the difference there in question was based on any ground such as ‘association with a national minority’. All that was being said was that differences between the laws in different jurisdictions . .
Cited – Condliff, Regina (on The Application of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust CA 27-Jul-2011
the claimant, a morbidly obese man, made a funding request to the trust for gastric surgery. This was refused because he did not meet the trust’s policy of offering funding to people who had a body mass index which exceeded a certain level. The . .
Cited – Gudmundsson v Iceland ECHR 1996
A revocation of a licence is not a deprivation of property, but rather a control of its use within the second paragraph of article 1 under a proportionate and Convention compliant scheme . .
Cited – Justice for Health Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Health Admn 28-Sep-2016
The claimant junior doctors’ association challenged the imposition on them of new contracts of employment, on the basis that the 2006 Act gave him no power so to act, that the manner of imposition was opaque and confused, and was irrational and not . .
Cited – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board SC 11-Mar-2015
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations
The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a . .
Cited – MS, R (on the application of) v Collins and Another CA 30-Jul-1998
Judge LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said this: ‘In our judgment while pregnancy increases the personal responsibilities of a woman it does not diminish her entitlement to decide whether or not to undergo medical treatment. Although human, . .
Cited – Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust CA 11-Apr-2001
A mother had undergone a negligent sterilisation, and in due course she gave birth to a disabled child.
Held: The right to bodily integrity is the first and most important of the interests protected by the law of tort. The cases saying that . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ECJ 3-Feb-2009
ECJ (Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom).
‘where the constitutional system of a member state provides that devolved . .
Cited – Regina (Quintavalle, Prolife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation CA 14-Mar-2002
The applicant had stood for election, and since there were a sufficient number of candidates for the ProLife Alliance, they sought a party political broadcast. The material they produced was rejected by the respondent and others, as not complying . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Crime

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.587786

Meachen v Regina: CACD 5 Aug 2009

The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, asking the court to admit further evidence from an expert who had given evidence at the trial and further confirmatory evidence.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The defence showed no proper reason for the evidence not having been given at trial. It went to undermine the account given by suggesting that the pain of the events as alleged was misdescribed. In fact the pain suffered by the complainant had not been the central issue. The additional evidence would not take the point further.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1701

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Jones (Steven Martin) CACD 23-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder wishing to bring in evidence of his diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was admitted, but the conviction was upheld. The court took the opportunity to give . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.371882

Regina v Grant: CACD 22 Nov 2001

A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order containing restrictions on the liberty of the accused person where the accused person has been found to have committed an act which constituted the actus reus of murder where the person was indicted for murder without there being any determination by an independent and impartial tribunal as to whether the appropriate count was one of murder or manslaughter. It was submitted that the provision is incompatible with articles 5.1(e) and 6.1 of the Convention.
Richards J said: ‘Subject to the concern expressed below, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to have decided to lay down a mandatory requirement of admission to hospital for a person who has been charged with murder, has been found to have done the act charged, but is under a disability so as to be unfit to be tried; and detention in those circumstances is not to be regarded as ‘arbitrary’ for the purposes of Article 5(1)(e). The right to make immediate application to the MHRT and the other protections operating following admission to hospital ensure compliance with Article 5(4)’ and
Richards J continued: ‘The point of concern is whether the procedures give proper effect to the second of the conditions laid down for detention under Article 5(1)(e). To adopt the formulation in R (H) v. London North and East Mental Health Review Tribunal, ‘the test is whether it can be reliably shown that the [person] suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention’. The procedures under the 1964 Act are not directed specifically to that question. The issue under section 4 is whether the defendant is fit to be tried, which involves consideration of whether the defendant has sufficient intellect to instruct his legal team, to plead to the indictment, to challenge jurors, to understand the evidence and to give evidence. Those criteria do not correspond directly to the criteria for a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention, and it may be possible for a person to be found unfit to be tried without his suffering from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. Yet once a person facing a charge of murder has been found to be unfit to be tried, there is no further consideration of his mental condition under the statutory procedures prior to admission to hospital. If the jury find under section 4A(2) that he did the act charged, it is mandatory for the judge to make an admission order under s.5. The judge cannot consider whether such an order is justified on the medical evidence. Thus no-one is required specifically to address, prior to the person’s detention, the question whether he suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. This feature of the procedure does raise the question whether detention is ‘arbitrary’ in the sense explained by the European Court of Human Rights in Winterwerp and Johnson.

It seems to us that the question is one of some difficulty. The answer to it may lie, but does not necessarily do so, in Mr Eadie’s submission that this is a difficult and complex area where Parliament has carried out the requisite balancing exercise and has concluded that, where it has been found by a jury that a person is unfit to be tried and has done the act charged as murder, the automatic consequence ought to be admission to hospital as prescribed in s.5 (subject to the person’s right to make immediate application to the MHRT and to the other protections afforded to a person subject to detention under these provisions); that the court should afford a measure of deference to Parliament in such a field; and that in all the circumstances the procedure is not to be stigmatised as arbitrary for the purposes of Article 5.

In the circumstances of the present case, however, it is unnecessary for us to reach any conclusion on that issue, since we are satisfied on the particular facts that the conditions for detention, albeit not considered in terms under the statutory procedure, were in fact met. All the experts who gave evidence in the s.4A proceedings were of the view that the appellant suffered from mental impairment within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. They did not consider the question of disposal because it was not necessary for them to do so. [The medical history was considered]. We are also told that, though no report is available, the Secretary of State understands from the clinical staff at the hospital that they believe that the appellant’s mental impairment would justify her continuing detention in hospital and that there is treatment available which is alleviating her condition. Looking at the evidence as a whole, we take the view that the appellant did suffer from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention and that the conditions for initial detention under Article 5(1)(e) were therefore met. That is a sufficient basis for rejecting this part of the appellant’s case. ‘

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Richards J, Pitchford J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 2611, [2002] MHLR 41, [2002] 1 Cr App R 38,, [2002] QB 1030, [2002] 2 WLR 1409, [2002] Crim LR 403

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5, European Convention on Human Rights 6 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
Cited – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.271134

Regina v C (Mental disorder: Sexual activity): CACD 23 May 2008

The defendant appealed his conviction of sexual activity with a person wth a mental disorder. He said that the victim had consented. The court had said that her consent was vitiated by virtue of her mental disorder.
Held: For mental disorder or incapacity to found such a prosecution, the lack of capacity had to be severe even if as in this case the consent had also been induced by an element of fear.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Bean and Mr Justice Wilkie

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-2005

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.277724

Regina v Passmore: CACD 18 Jun 2007

The defendant had been receiving housing and council tax benefit. He appealed his conviction for having failed to notify the authority of his change in circumstances, saying that the change would not have altered his entitlement. The interpretation of the statute offered by the defendant followed the ordinary and natural meaning of the words of the statute.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Butterfield J, Wadsworth QC

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2007

Statutes:

Socual Security Fraud Act 2001, Social Security Administration Act 1992 IIIA(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.259286

Regina v Wilson: CACD 15 May 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that as a thirteen year old he had committed it on his father’s instructions and out of fear of his father.
Held: Duress was no defence to a charge of murder. It was not necessary for the judge to put before the jury in detail material which could not be a defence.

Judges:

Lord Philips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Henriques J, Teare J

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Fraser Marr CACD 1990
The defendant complained that his defence, as unattractive as it may have been, had not been put to the jury with balanced treatment and consideration.
Held: Such treatment was the right of every criminal defendant. The court allowed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.258637

Abdullah, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 29 Jan 2010

The claimant had secured entry from the Sudan. He had been convicted and served time for serious offences, and was to be deported. The Sudanese authorities denied his nationality and he had served the equivalent of six years imprisonment pending deportation. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of his release from administrative detention.

Judges:

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 259 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Crime, Prisons

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.402725

Muhammed v Regina: CACD 19 Feb 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing an article for a purpose connected with terrorism and making a record of information likely to be useful in terrorism. He now appealed against the latter conviction. He had been found to have very large quantities of such electronic materials.
Held: The appeal failed. The definition of such material had not been too wide. However the appeal against sentence succeeded.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Wyn Williams J, Warwick McKinnon HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 227, [2010] 3 All ER 759

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401803

Higgins and Another v The Crown: CACD 24 Feb 2010

The defendants appealed agaoinst their convictions for robbery, kidnapping, fraud and assault. They were said to have forced another young man to surrender his bank card and pin number allowing them to make cash withdrawals from his account. They said that the judge had dealt incorrectly with bad character directions.
Held: Though the judge had come close to usurping the functions of the jury, the convictions remained safe.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Mackay, Griffith Williams JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401801

Zaman, Regina v: CACD 22 Jan 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for aiding an offender. He had pleaded guilty, but the principal offender had subsequently been acquitted of his alleged offences.
Held: The appeal failed. The section referred to the commission of an offence, and not to a conviction for that offence. There are several reasons why the conviction was not incompatible with a failure to convict a principal offender. The issue was whether the defendant believed at the time that the person he assisted was guilty of an offence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Mrs Justice Sharp and Sir Peter Cresswell

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 209

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1967 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401642

Beck and Others, Re Petitions To The Nobile Officium: HCJ 29 Jan 2010

Citations:

[2010] Scothc Hcjac – 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396658

Field, Regina v: CACD 12 Dec 2002

The Court was asked whether a disqualification order could be made under Section 28 of the 2000 Act, disqualifying an adult from working with children, based on an offence committed before the 2000 Act came into force.
Held: A relatively relaxed approach was required. The conviction was a gateway criterion for the making of an order.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Grigson, Ouseley JJ

Citations:

[2003] 1 WLR 882, [2002] EWCA Crim 2913, [2003] UKHRR 271, [2003] 3 All ER 769, [2003] 2 Cr App Rep 3, [2003] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 35, [2003] Crim LR 201

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 28, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393011