Category: Crime

Regina v Plant: CACD 9 Apr 2008

The defendant was charged with both a summary and an indictable offence, and was committed to the crown court for trial. At the crown court the indictable offence was withdrawn at the close of the prosecution case. The defendant said that the remaining summary case should have been remitted to the magistrates.
Held: Section 40 was procedural only. It was not necessary to remit the summary case to the magistrates.

Judges:

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

Citations:

Times 21-Apr-2008

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1980 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.268786

Regina v Perrin: CACD 22 Mar 2002

The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the web-site from within the UK. The defendant appealed saying that he had not acted within the UK, and had not committed the offence, and that the allegation was bad as imprecise, and that there had been no publication within the jurisdiction.
Held: Whilst the number of people who might be corrupted had to be more than negligible, no licence to publish was obtained because many readers or viewers would not be corrupted. The availability of the material as a preview page was relevant when considering who might see the article, and may be corrupted. That a viewer may already be corrupted is not to say that the material provided may not further corrupt him. One officer seeing the material was sufficient to constitute publication. The argument as to imprecision required additional words to be imported into the convention. The internet is a worldwide system, and applying the laws of each country in which a page may be read could lead to the most restrictive laws being universally applied. The restriction on expression did engage the defendants rights, but was necessary in a free and democratic society. It was not necessary for a prosecutor to show where the major steps in publication took place to found jurisdiction. See also CL vol 13 issue 2 for comment)

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Potter, And Mr Justice Harrison

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 747, [2002] EWCA Crim 747

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Obscene Publications Act 1959 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Barker CCA 1962
. .
Cited – Regina v Clayton and Halsey CCA 1963
Two experienced police officers in plain clothes had entered a bookshop owned by Clayton in which Halsey was his assistant. The officers had each selected a packet of photographs which formed the subject matter of the substantive charges. In . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Whyte HL 1972
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The Obscene Publications Act 1959 adopted the expression ‘deprave and corrupt’ but gave a new turn to it. Previously, though appearing in Cockburn C.J.’s formula, the words had in fact been largely disregarded: the courts . .
Cited – Regina v O’Sullivan CACD 1995
. .
Cited – The Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
Cited – Groppera Radio Ag And Others v Switzerland ECHR 28-Mar-1990
Hudoc No violation of Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 13 . .
Cited – Muller And Others v Switzerland ECHR 24-May-1988
The Court considered a complaint that Article 10 had been infringed by the applicant’s conviction of an offence of publishing obscene items, consisting of paintings which were said ‘mostly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of . .
Cited – Wingrove v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1996
The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sheppard and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.170012

Stewart, Regina v: CACD 26 Mar 2009

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the judge should have directed the jury as to the impact of alcohol dependency syndrome on his plea of diminished responsibility where there had been no discernible brain damage.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and an order for a retrial was made. The court had applied the directions from Tandy but without allowing sufficiently for the developments in Dietchmann and Wood. The jury should be directed as to whether the defendant suffered an abnormality of the mind. It should be reminded that alcohol dependency was not of itself a justification for finding such an abnormality. It was for the jury to decide the actual effect suffered by the defendant. If the abnormaility was established it would normally follow that this was from a disease. Only then should the jury ask whether the defendant’s mental responsibility was affected substantially.

Judges:

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Wyn Williams and Mr Justice Holroyde

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 593, Times 20-Jul-2009, [2009] 2 Cr App R 30, [2009] Crim LR 807

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Byrne CCA 1960
The defendant was a sexual psychopath who had strangled and mutilated a young woman resident of the YWCA. The case on his behalf was that he was unable to resist his impulse to gross and sadistic sexual violence. The judge’s directions had amounted . .
Cited – Wood, Regina v (No 1) CACD 20-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, and that this amounted to a diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal succeeded and and a conviction for manslaughter was . .
Cited – Regina v Dietschmann HL 27-Feb-2003
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility
The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility.
Cited – Regina v Tandy CACD 1987
The issue of alcoholism in a murder case may be dealt with solely under diminished responsibility. A craving for alcohol would only give rise to an abnormality of mind for the purpose of section 2(1) of the Homicide Act if it was such that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324720

Donnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 16 Mar 2009

A prosecutor for the purposes of the Trade Descriptions Act was the council and not an individual employee.

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Sweeney J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 489 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Oct-2016
The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323734

Malicki, Regina v: CACD 12 Feb 2009

Appeal from conviction for one sexual assault in a child.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The complainant had been young, and there had been too long a delay before the trial, and her examination had been leading.

Judges:

Richards LJm Christopher Clarke J, Sir Peter Cresssell

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 365

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317860

H, Regina v: CACD 10 Jul 2007

The judge had upheld a half time submission where there was strong evidence that a drunk 16-year old had consented to intercourse.
Held: The issue ought to have been left to the jury. Hallett LJ observed that questions of capacity and consent should normally be left to the jury. It is only in the clearest of cases that a judge is entitled to conclude that there is no evidence on which the jury could properly convict in a case of this kind and accede to a submission of no case.

Judges:

Hallett LJ, Butterfield, Wilkie JJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 2056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Robinson CACD 23-Mar-2011
Earlier Acquittal not for mention on retrial
The defendant appealed against several convictions for serious ‘historic’ sex abuse. He said that there was insufficient evidence before the court to decide that the complainant had been under 14 at the time, and that any consent was vitiated. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.314318

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 22 Oct 2008

The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to deprive him of his British citizenship. He contends that they do because the appeal will determine his civil rights and obligations, so as to engage Article 6(1). The Secretary of State contends that the rights in question are public law rights, so that their determination does not engage Article 6.

Judges:

Mitting J, Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKSIAC 66/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC(1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .

Cited by:

At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC (2) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC (2) – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC (2) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295109

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department: SIAC 23 May 2008

The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the public good.

Judges:

Mitting J Ch, Lane SIJ

Citations:

[2008] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(2)

Citing:

At Admn – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At CA(1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .

Cited by:

At SIAC(1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At SIAC(1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC (1) – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC (1) – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.295106

Regina v Hatton (Jonathan): CACD 26 Oct 2005

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that his defence of having killed by virtue of a mistake which arose from his self-induced intoxication should have been allowed.
Held: The appeal failed. It had been argued that the comments on ths topic by Lord Lane in O’Grady were obiter since he was convicted of manslaughter. The term ‘obiter dicta’ is a term of legal art with no ready and accurate translation into English: ‘The term described judicial statements which were peripheral to the reason for the decision: the ratio decidendi’ The judgments in O’Grady made no distinction between murder and manslaughter. The issue was a general one. The court could not disregard the decision in O’Grady, and was bound by it.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Regina v O’Grady CACD 1987
The defendant and his associate drank substantial quantities of cider. They then fought and the defendant killed the associate. His defence was that he mistakenly thought his friend was attacking him. He appealed his conviction for manslaughter.
Cited – Regina v Williams (Gladstone) CACD 28-Nov-1983
The defendant believed that the person whom he assaulted was unlawfully assaulting a third party. That person was a police officer, who said he was arresting the other, but did not show his warrant card.
Held: The court considered the issue of . .
Cited – Beckford v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1987
(Jamaica) Self defence permits a defendant to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be. ‘If then a genuine belief, albeit without reasonable grounds, is a defence to rape because it negatives the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.235770

Saik, Regina v: HL 3 May 2006

The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it would be.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond dissenting) The appeal succeeded: ‘the Crown’s principal argument is not that the appellant here knew that the property would be hot but rather that, whilst only suspecting it, he nevertheless intended it to be so.’ and ‘proof of the mental element needed for the commission of a substantive offence will not always suffice on a charge of conspiracy to commit that offence. In respect of a material fact or circumstance conspiracy has its own mental element. In conspiracy this mental element is set as high as ‘intend or know’. ‘ and ‘the appellant’s case is caught by section 1(2) of the 1977 Act. He cannot be said to be guilty of the conspiracy to commit the substantive offence under section 93C(2) because he did not know, and therefore did not intend, that the money which he agreed to convert would be the proceeds of crime when at some future date he came to perform his part of the agreement. ‘
Lord Brown said: ‘the reality here is that the Crown is using the offence of conspiracy purely as a device to circumvent the problems caused in England (although not, it appears, in Scotland) by the duplicity rule. To avoid the need for each substantive offence to be charged separately, thereby absurdly overloading the indictment, the Crown instead charge conspiracy which allows them to roll together into a single charge the events of a continuing course of conduct. There are other advantages too for prosecutors who rely on a conspiracy charge. Small wonder, therefore, that it is often called the ‘prosecutor’s darling’. But there are limits to these advantages and, given that the mere fact of agreement is sufficient to establish liability for this inchoate crime, it is important that these limits are recognised and not artificially stretched. To uphold this conviction would in my judgment be a bridge too far. I too would allow the appeal. ‘ and ‘To suspect something to be so is by no means to believe it to be so: it is to believe only that it may be so.’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 18, Times 05-May-2006, [2007] 1 AC 18, [2006] 4 All ER 866, [2006] Crim LR 998, [2006] 2 AC 18, [2006] 2 Cr App R 26, [2006] 2 WLR 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1), Criminal Justice Act 1988 93C, Criminal Justice Act 1993 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Saik v Regina CACD 24-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to launder the proeeds of crime. He had tendered the plea on the basis that he had only suspected and not known that the funds were the proceeds of crime. Whether to allow a defendant to withdraw . .
Cited – Regina v Churchill HL 2-Jan-1967
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the common law offence of conspiracy to commit a statutory offence. The statutory offence was an offence of strict liability.
Held: The conspirator was not guilty of the offence of conspiracy . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Ali, Hussain, Khan, Bhatti, Regina v CACD 7-Jun-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to launder money under section 49(2) of the 1994 Act. The appellants said that the effect of the decision in Montila, alongside sections 1(1) and 1(2) of the 1997 Act, was that a . .
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Regina v Griffiths CACD 1974
It was perfectly correct to direct a jury that, in common sense and in law, they may find that the defendant knew or believed goods to have been stolen because he deliberately closed his eyes to the circumstances. . .
Cited – O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 21-Nov-1996
Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief
The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded . .
Cited – Regina v Gulbir Rana Singh CACD 18-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed conviction on three counts of conspiracy to launder money. The prosecution said that he and his co-accused engaged in money laundering between June 1999 and March 2000. Each count alleged that he and his co-conspirators . .
Cited – Harmer v Regina CACD 21-Jan-2005
The appellant and a co-defendant were charged with conspiracy to launder property which they had reasonable grounds to suspect was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. The prosecution accepted that they could not establish . .
Cited – Regina v Sakavickas and Another CACD 3-Nov-2004
The defendants appealed a conviction for conspiracy to assist another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct. One set of defendants illegally imported cigarettes, and S was accused of operating a bank account to assist in the moving of the . .
Cited – Regina v Kidd, Moore, and Haward CACD 3-Jul-1997
A person cannot be lawfully punished for offences for which he has not been indicted and which he has denied or declined to admit and have not been proved. . .
Cited – Regina v Ardalan CACD 1972
The court considered the difficulty of dealing with ‘cartwheel’ or ‘chain’ conspiracies: ‘The essential point in dealing with this type of conspiracy charge, where the prosecution have brought one, and only one, charge against the alleged . .
Cited – Regina v Reed CACD 1982
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy after visiting potential suicides, attempting to dissuade them but then when they could not be persuaded, giving them practical assistance to commit suicide. . .
Cited – Regina v O’Hadhmaill CACD 1996
The defendants appealed conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions. During an IRA ceasefire, they had made bombs intending them to be used only if the ceasefire failed.
Held: The convictions were proper. . .
Cited – Regina v Jackson CACD 1985
The three defendants were properly convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They agreed that a fourth man, under trial for burglary, should be shot in the leg so as to provide him with mitigation in the event he was convicted. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Suchedina v Regina; similar CACD 27-Oct-2006
Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: . .
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
Cited – Ramzan and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Jul-2006
The court considered its power on allowing an appeal after a plea of guilty to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offence.
Held: Hughes LJ said that section 3A of the 1968 Act imposed a two stage test. The court considering . .
Cited – ABC and Others, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2015
Several defendants sought to appeal against convictions. They were public officials accused of having committed misconduct in public office in the sale of information relating to their work to journalists. The journalists were convicted of . .
Cited – Lane and Another, Regina v SC 11-Jul-2018
The defendants were to be tried for allegedly sending funds abroad to support terrorism. The court now considered the meaning of the phrase ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ in the context of the anticipated use of the funds: ‘Does it mean that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.241416

B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1999

Rougier J: ‘Though any violation of a child’s innocence attracts very grave stigma, yet the protection of children from sexual abuse is a social and moral imperative.’

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Tucker and Rougier JJ

Citations:

[1999] 3 WLR 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.195983

Regina v Kumar: CACD 16 Dec 2004

The defendant appealed a conviction for buggery of a complainant under the age of 16, saying that he had a genuine belief that the boy had been of age.
Held: Buggery was not an absolute offence. The amendments to the 1956 Act did not signify that the age related offence should be one of strict liability. Mens rea was required, and that was negatived by a genuine belief on the defendant that the complainant was of age.

Judges:

Mr Justice Gage Lord Justice Nelson Field Mr Justice Field

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2005, [2004] EWCA Crim 3207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 1956 12, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v K HL 25-Jul-2001
In a prosecution for an offence of indecent assault on a girl under 16 under the section, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a positive belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 16 or over. The legislation history . .
Cited – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brown, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 26-Jun-2013
The complainaint, a 13 year old girl had first said that the defendant had had intercourse with her againt her consent. After his arrest, she accepted that this was untrue. On being recharged with unlawful intercourse, he admitted guilt believing he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.221497

Gordon, for Judicial Review: SCS 29 Nov 2013

(Extra Division, Inner House) Challenge to refusal of order for review of failure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the reclaimer’s case to the High Court.
Held: Appeal refused.

Citations:

[2013] CSIH 101, [2013] ScotCS CSIH – 101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Gordon v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 24-Apr-2009
. .
See Also – Gordon v HM Advocate HCJ 6-May-2010
Appeal rejected.
Lord Carloway considered each of the grounds of appeal with meticulous care, and reflected his evaluation of the likely effect on the jury’s verdict of the additional or undisclosed evidence, and of the potential evidence which . .
Appeal from – Gordon, Re Judicial Review SCS 24-Jan-2013
Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer his case to the High Court in terms of section 194B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Held: The application was refused.
As to the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland) SC 22-Mar-2017
The appellant the Commission’s decision not to refer his case back to the court. They had agreed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to make such a referral. His statement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.640553

Regina v Wakeman: CACD 1 Jul 2011

The court gave its reasons for rejecting the defendant’s appeal against conviction, but granting his appeal on sentence of six months’ for child abduction, varying it to a conditional discharge for one year.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Stadlen, Sweeney JJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 1649, (2011) 175 JP 353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.448496

Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG: Admn 12 Feb 2009

A control order under the 2005 Act could not include a right for officers to conduct a personal search. However a 16-hour per day curfew together with a relocation from Derby to Chesterfield and which presented no difficulties for family visits was upheld.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 142 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG CA 23-Jul-2009
The defendant challenged the inclusion in a control order of an order to submit to personal searches. The Secretary of State appealed against a refusal of the order to ermit the searches.
Held: The appeal failed. Such orders were made solely . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.282628

Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 5 Feb 2009

The claimant sought judicial review to test the validity of the bye-laws which prohibited them from camping on public land to support their demonstration.
Held: The bye-laws violated the claimant’s right to freedom of assembly and of expression. The respondent’s objections to the camp were insubstantial and could not justify the interference. The camp had existed for 23 years. Demonstrations were in their nature unruly and inconvenient.
Laws LJ said: ‘As I have said it is plain in this case that the Secretary of State has not sought to impose anything approaching a blanket ban on AWPC’s rights of protest. They may protest as much as they like: all they are stopped from doing is camping in the Controlled Areas. In that sense it may be said that paragraph 7(2)(f) of the 2007 Byelaws only goes to the manner and form of the exercise of the appellant’s rights under ECHR Article 10. It is not on its face directed towards the suppression of free speech, on the part of the AWPC or anyone else. It merely prohibits camping, which happens to be the mode or setting chosen by the AWPC for its protest.
But this ‘manner and form’ may constitute the actual nature and quality of the protest; it may have acquired a symbolic force inseparable from the protestors’ message; it may be the very witness of their beliefs.’ and ‘Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them. Sometimes they are wrong-headed and misconceived. Sometimes they betray a kind of arrogance: an arrogance which assumes that spreading the word is always more important than the mess which, often literally, the exercise leaves behind. In that case, firm but balanced regulation may well be justified.’

Judges:

Laws LJ, Wall LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 23, [2009] WLR (D) 35

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Statutes:

Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Byelaws 2007, European Convention on Human Rights 10 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 6-Mar-2008
The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010
The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .
Cited – Howarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
Cited – City of London v Samede and Others QBD 18-Jan-2012
The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either . .
Approved – The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative) and Others CA 22-Feb-2012
The defendants sought to appeal against an order for them to vacate land outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London which they occupied as a protest.
Held: The application for leave to appeal failed. The only possible ground for appeal was on the . .
Cited – Lord Carlile and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Mar-2012
The claimant had invited an Iranian dissident to speak in Parliament, and now challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse her a visa on the basis that her exclusion was not conducive to the public good. She was a member of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces, Human Rights

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280444

Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 21 Jan 2009

The claimants had been detained on the request of the Iraqi criminal court in a detention facility run by the UK armed forces. They complained of their proposed transfer to an Iraqi facility in anticipation of facing trial for murder, for which if convicted they might face the death penalty.
Held: The claimants were not under the jurisdiction of the UK for human rights law purposes. The operation of the Convention was essentially territorial, with possible ‘outposts’ which might be within the jurisdiction. The scope of the Convention had no clear edge, but the court identified four propositions for such extra-territorial outposts. It was an exceptional jurisdiction; it was to be ascertained in harmony with other applicable norms of international law; it reflected the regional nature of the Convention rights; and it reflected the indivisible nature of the Convention rights. In this case, the UK was acting at all times only as agent of the Iraqi court. The espace juridique of the Convention was not extended, and the Convention did not apply.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 7, [2009] WLR (D) 17, [2009] UKHRR 638

Links:

Bailii, Times, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 29-Aug-2008
The applicants complained of their continued detention in Iraq in a UK internment facility as an infringement of their human rights. . .
Appeal from – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 22-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Bankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini and others (The Redress Trust Intervening) HL 13-Jun-2007
Complaints were made as to the deaths of six Iraqi civilians which were the result of actions by a member or members of the British armed forces in Basra. One of them, Mr Baha Mousa, had died as a result of severe maltreatment in a prison occupied . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant Iraqi nationals complained of their long term detention by British forces in Iraq, and of their transfer to the Iraqi authorities for trial for murder.
Held: The transfer was a breach of the applicants’ rights. The Iraqis had . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Smith, Regina (on the Application of) CA 18-May-2009
The soldier had died of heatstroke after exercises in Iraq. The Minister appealed against a finding that the circumstances of his death required an investigation compliant with Article 2 human rights, saying that he was not subject to such . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 17-Mar-2015
Leggatt J explained the idea of enforced disappearance: ‘a concept recognised in international law and . . a practice which is internationally condemned. It involves detention outside the protection of the law where there is a refusal by the state . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 26-Jun-2015
Reasons for orders following a case management hearing to review whether there are steps which the court should now be taking to procure compliance by the Secretary of State for Defence with the duty of the UK under articles 2 and 3 of the European . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 7-Apr-2016
The court considered the extent of the state’s obligations to investigate allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment of civilians by British soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. It follows a hearing to consider three issues: i) Whether the . .
See Also – Al-Saadoon and Others v The Secretary of State for Defence and Others CA 9-Sep-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime, Armed Forces, International

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280067

Beckingham, Regina v: CACD 22 Mar 2006

The court allowed the defendant’s appeal against her conviction under section 7 of the 1974 Act in relation to an outbreak of legionnaires disease traced to the cooling towers of an air-conditioning system for which she, the building owners’ employed architect, had been responsible. The prosecution had served on Ms Beckingham ten particulars of alleged breaches of duty by way of specified acts or omissions. Rose LJ said: ‘having regard to the way in which this case was presented by the prosecution, it was incumbent on the judge specifically to direct the jury that they must unanimously be sure that one or more of the particulars relied on as supporting the offence was made out and that this gave rise to a breach of duty under section 7.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 773

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

health and Safety at Work Act 1974 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278938

Regina v Hollinshead; Dettlaff, Griffiths: HL 2 Jan 1985

The defendants had manufactured boxes whose sole purpose would be to reverse electricity meters. The prosecutor appealed against their acquittal by the CACD on the basis that the offence of conspiracy to aid and abet did not exist, since aiding and abetting was not a statutory offence with the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The House reserved the question of whether there could be a conspiracy to aid and abet, since it was sufficient to find them guilty of such a conspiracy at common law. The offence at common law and the statutory offence of conspiracy are mutually exclusive.

Judges:

Roskill L

Citations:

[1985] AC 975, [1985] 3 WLR 159, [1985] 1 All ER 850

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Hollinshead CACD 1985
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to aid an abet a fraud under the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no offence of conspiracy in the form alleged namely to aid and abet, since aiding and abetting . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Kenning, Blackshaw, Fenwick CACD 24-Jun-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to aid and abet the production of drugs. They sold materials which could be used for the growing of cannabis, but exhibited a notice warning customers against this. They told . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278581

Prosecutor v Blaskic: 1997

(Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The acts of state officials acting in that capacity are not attributable to them personally but only to the state: ‘Such officials are mere instruments of a state and their official action can only be attributed to the state. They cannot be the subject of sanctions or penalties for conduct that is not private but undertaken on behalf of a state. In other words, state officials cannot suffer the consequences of wrongful acts which are not attributable to them personally but to the state on whose behalf they act: they enjoy so-called ‘functional immunity’. This is a well-established rule of customary international law going back to the 18th and 19th centuries, restated many times since.’

Citations:

(1997) 110 ILR 607

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Crime

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.242891

Tandy, Regina v: CACD 21 Dec 1987

The court was asked: ‘Whether, for a craving for drink or drugs in itself to produce an abnormality of mind within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, the craving must be such as to render the accused’s use of drink or drugs involuntary or whether it is sufficient for the defence to prove that the craving was such as to make it more difficult, than for an ordinary individual, for the accused to resist the impulse to consume alcohol or use drugs?’

Judges:

Watkins LJ, Rose, Roch JJ

Citations:

[1987] EWCA Crim 5, [1989] 1 WLR 350, (1988) 87 Cr App R 45

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 82(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.384443