Category: Crime

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: Saik now meant that the requirement was for actual suspicion, not mere reasonable cause for suspicion. However in this case the charge was conspiracy, and if the agreement alleged led to the offence then the conspiracy was made out: ‘Where therefore such an either/or conspiracy count is charged, the Defendant must be proved to have agreed, at some stage, to launder money which he intends shall be of one or other illicit origin, or of both. It is not enough that he has agreed to launder money which he only suspects may be of illicit origin: Saik. Nor is it enough that he is prepared to take the risk that it may be of illicit origin. He must intend to launder money which is of illicit origin of one kind or the other, or both. But if he does intend to launder it whichever its illicit origin, he is still intending to launder money intended to be illicit, and he is entering an agreement to a course of conduct which will, if carried out in accordance with his intention, necessarily amount to or involve the commission of one or other or both of the two substantive offences referred to. ‘ A re-trial was ordered.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Henriques LJ, Field J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2543

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Hussain, Regina v Bhatti, Regina v Bhatti CACD 16-Jan-2002
It was possible to have an indictment which alleged a conspiracy to commit either one of two alternative offences. A conspiracy could clearly be to commit more than one offence. The phrase in the section ‘offence or offences’ should not be construed . .
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 – Attoney-General’s Reference No 4 of 2003 Under S. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Suchedina CACD 21-Jul-2004
Conspiracy to convert or transfer the proceeds of drug trafficking or of criminal conduct – confiscation order available. The statutory distinction existed between the proceeds of drug trafficking and of crime generally had now been removed, but the . .
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 Charles, Regina v Tucker CACD 20-Feb-2001
Charles had absconded on the day he was convicted of robbery shortly before the summing up. He was arrested over a year later and sentenced. He gave instructions to his solicitors to advance and renew his applications for leave to appeal conviction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245678

Regina v Corbett: CACD 27 Feb 1996

The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that there had been insufficient evidence that his actions were causative of the death.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Alliott, Ognall JJ

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1793, [1996] Crim LR 594

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245686

Stewart and Another, Regina v: CACD 10 Nov 1994

Hobhouse LJ said: ‘The question whether the relevant act was committed in the course of carrying out the joint enterprise in which the defendant was a participant is a question of fact not law. If the act was not so committed then the joint enterprise ceases to provide a basis for a finding of guilt against such a defendant. He ceases to be responsible for the act. This is the fundamental point illustrated by Anderson and Morris and Lovesey and Peterson. But it does not follow that a variation in the intent of some of the participants at the time the critical act is done precludes the act from having been done in the course of carrying out the joint enterprise as is illustrated by Betty and Reid.
The appeals against conviction must accordingly be dismissed.!

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Turner, Wright JJ

Citations:

[1994] EWCA Crim 3, [1995] 1 Cr App R 441, [1995] 3 All ER 159

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Reid CACD 1975
Three men, alleged by the Crown to be supporters of the IRA, armed with weapons, went to the house of an army officer at night. When he opened the door one of them shot him. Two were convicted of murder; the third, Reid, was acquitted of murder but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245682

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: CA 1 Aug 2006

The applicants had challenged non-derogating control orders restricting his liberty on the basis that he was suspected of terrorist intentions. The Home Secretary appealed an order finding the restrictions to be unlawful.
Held: The Home Secretary’s appeal failed. The restrictions imposing an 18 hours a day curfew, and additional substantial movement and association restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The difference between deprivations of liberty and restrictions on liberty of movement were ones of fact and degree. It was not correct to ignore the additional external restrictions when considering whether they amounted to a deprivation of liberty. On these facts the judge was clearly right to make his finding.

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1141, [2006] HRLR 38, [2007] QB 446, [2006] UKHRR 1081, [2006] 3 WLR 866

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others Admn 28-Jun-2006
The claimants challenged the terms of restrictions placed upon them under the Act. . .
Applied – Guzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244107

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB: CA 1 Aug 2006

The Secretary of State appealed a declaration that the restrictions imposed on the complainant under the 2005 Act were an infringement of his human rights, and a declaration of incompatibility as regards section 3.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The availability of a judicial review of the orders made was sufficient to provide a protection. The orders would impinge on the human rights of those subject to them, but the judge had concluded that the judicial protection was insufficient. In fact the Act required the judge to do what was necessary to protect the subject’s human rights. The Home Secretary had to have grounds for suspicion, and to consider the order to be necessary. His greater factual knowledge must require some deference from the courts, but the courts must give intense scrutiny to decide whether the matrix of facts and suspicions justified the order. That exercise was not the same as judging them against a standard of proof. European jurisdiction accepted that closed material might be used subject to safeguards, and the system of special advocates and rules of court provided adequate safeguards.

Judges:

Lord Phillips CJ

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1140, [2007] QB 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 3, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB QBD 12-Apr-2006
The claimant complained at the control order by which restrictions were imposed on him as a suspected terrorist.
Held: The new provisions were declared incompatible with the applicant’s human rights. The procedures purported to allow judicial . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AL Admn 17-Aug-2007
The claimant sought to challenge a control order made against him under the 2005 Act. He had not cross examined the prosecution witnesses saying that the procedure was unfair in that he had not been allowed to see all the evidence against him. He . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited – AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Home Secretary to vary the control order made against him under the 2005 Act.
Held: The organisation of which the applicant was a member might soon enter into a settlement with the Libyan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244108

La Torre v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 14 Jul 2006

The applicant resisted his extradition to Italy, saying that the provisions of Part 2 of the 2003 Act were engaged because the case started life before Italy ratified the Framework Decision and so adopted the EAW system. La Torre had been found guilty of extradition crimes in Italy and sentenced, but this first instance process was not final in the eye of Italian law.
Held: The section distinguished between an accused person and a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction. Since it is agreed that the accused is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction, it follows, in our view, that he has to be categorised as an accused person within the meaning of section 70(4)(a). The key consideration is the fact that the accused’s sentence is still subject to appeal and his conviction cannot be said to be final.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Macfadyen And Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2006] ScotHC HCJAC – 56, 2008 JC 23, [2007] Eu LR 70, 2006 GWD 31-667, 2006 SCCR 503, 2006 SLT 989

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

See Also – La Torre v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 8-Nov-2006
The Lord Advocate had conceded that devolution minutes were competent in proceedings under the 2003 Act. . .
Cited – Caldarelli v The Court of Naples Admn 12-Jul-2007
The court certified a point of law for the House of Lords as follows: ‘Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be . .
Cited – Caldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
See Also – La Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime, Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244044

Regina v Bradshaw: 1878

The court considered the lawfulness of the sport of boxing: ‘no rules or practice of any game whatever can make lawful that which is unlawful by the law of the land.’

Citations:

(1878) 14 Cox CC 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.182291

Rex v Pittwood: 1902

P was charged with manslaughter on the ground that he had been negligent in not closing a gate when a train passed which it was his duty to do with the result that White who was in a hay cart was killed while the cart was struck by the train which came when it was crossing the line. The Court held the prisoner liable as it was his duty to keep the gate shut to protect the public against an oncoming train. This act of misfeasance was held to constitute gross negligence in the discharge of his duty towards the public crossing the road, amounting to an offence of manslaughter.

Citations:

(1902) 19 TLR 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638763

McKenna v Her Majesty’s Advocate: ScHC 30 Dec 1999

The appellant was charged with murder. A witness had since died, and he objected to the introduction of his written statement, on the basis that this would infringe his right to a fair trial. The evidence was likely to be decisive.
Held: The fairness of the trial had to be considered as a whole. There was no basis in authority that admission of the evidence would necessarily prejudice the right to a fair trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice General and Lord Penrose and Lord Sutherland

Citations:

[1999] ScotHC 253

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 259(5), European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 6.3

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Docherty v H M Advocate 1945
At trial, the judge had failed to make clear to the jury that the conviction of the appellant on a charge of murder depended on whether there was satisfactory proof of having acted in concert with others.
Held: Lord Moncrieff commented on an . .
Cited – AGL and EDB v H M Advocate 1988
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.164548

John-Baptiste, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 May 2019

The court was asked whether the decision made on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions by senior officials of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute S for manslaughter for the death of Jourdain John-Baptiste was irrational.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1130 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.637784

Davies, Regina (on The Application of) v The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Admn 14 Nov 2018

This claimant seeks to challenge the decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the CCRC’) not to refer his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The Claimant was convicted by a jury in the Bradford Crown Court on 5 August 2009, following a retrial of his case. He was sentenced by Langstaff J to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 35 years custodial term.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3080 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.630553

Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 22 Feb 2000

Appeal by case stated from conviction for harassment. The defendant said that for a series of actions to amount to a ‘course of conduct’ there had to be some nexus between those actions.
Held: The conviction was quashed.

Citations:

[2000] EWHC QB 182, [2000] 1 FLR 799, [2000] Fam Law 610, [2000] Crim LR 580

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.263143

Director of Public Prosecutions v Collins: HL 19 Jul 2006

The defendant had made a series of racist and abusive calls to the office of his local MP. The prosecutor appealed a refusal to convict under the 1984 (now the 2003) Act. The defendant had argued that the messages had been offensive, but not grossly so.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. ‘The purpose of the legislation which culminates in section 127(1)(a) was to prohibit the use of a service provided and funded by the public for the benefit of the public for the transmission of communications which contravene the basic standards of our society.’
and ‘the proscribed act, the actus reus of the offence, is the sending of a message of the proscribed character by the defined means. The offence is complete when the message is sent.’ and
‘Parliament cannot have intended to criminalise the conduct of a person using language which is, for reasons unknown to him, grossly offensive to those to whom it relates, or which may even be thought, however wrongly, to represent a polite or acceptable usage. On the other hand, a culpable state of mind will ordinarily be found where a message is couched in terms showing an intention to insult those to whom the message relates or giving rise to the inference that a risk of doing so must have been recognised by the sender. ‘
Lord Carswell: ‘it can make no difference to criminal liability whether a message is ever actually received or whether the persons who do receive it are offended by it. What matters is whether reasonable persons in our society would find it grossly offensive. ‘
Lord Brown: ‘for liability to arise under section 1(1), the sender of the grossly offensive message must intend it to cause distress or anxiety to its immediate or eventual recipient. Not so under section 127(1)(a): the very act of sending the message over the public communications network (ordinarily the public telephone system) constitutes the offence even if it was being communicated to someone who the sender knew would not be in any way offended or distressed by it. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2006] UKHL 40, Times 21-Jul-2006, (2007) CrimLR 98, [2006] 1 WLR 2223, (2007) 1 CrAppR 5, [2006] 4 All ER 602

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Communications Act 2003 127(1)(a), Telecommunications Act 1984 43(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Director of Public Prosecutions v Collins Admn 23-Jun-2005
The defendant had, over a period of time, telephoned his MP’s office using racially abusive epithets. He was originally charged under the 1984 Act, but then under the 2003 Act. The magistrates found the remarks offensive, but not so grossly . .
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Cited – Norwood v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
(inadmissible) . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 27-Jul-2012
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction under section 127 of the 2003 Act. Becoming frustrated with its inefficiency he issued a tweet, which was said to have been a threat: ‘Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243334

Broadhead, Regina v: CACD 23 Jun 2006

Appeal from conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the conviction quashed: ‘ there was so little evidence implicating the appellant in the attack that no reasonable jury could properly have convicted on the evidence as it stood at the end of the Crown’s case.’

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243340

West Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman: Admn 13 Jun 2006

The complainant appealed dismissal of charges against the respondent of displaying for sale goods bearing marks identical to registered trade marks. The defendant asserted that he had reasonable grounds for belief that the goods were not counterfeit having cecked with market officials and a VAT inspector. The magistrates had acted on the basis that the test was objective not subjective,
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal was allowed. McCombe J: ‘a market trader, like Mr Kahraman here, who purchases goods with well-known designer names on them at very low prices, from a person of unknown identity (even if not positively ‘disreputable’) and with no positive evidence of trade reputation cannot begin to discharge the burden of proof imposed upon him by Section 92(5). It cannot conceivably be sufficient to observe other traders in similar circumstances buying goods or that the defendant is inexperienced in his trade or new to the market. The defence of reasonableness applies in equal manner to the experienced and the inexperienced. ‘

Judges:

Latham LJ, McCombe J, Dobbs J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1703 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 92(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v McCrudden CACD 2005
Laws LJ: ‘Section 92(5) affords a positive and specific defence as to the use of the trade mark by the defendant. It does not provide a general defence of good faith … It seems to us that the provisions contained in section 92 have been devised to . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Regina v Rhodes CACD 2002
Andrew Smith J: ‘No doubt in many cases the fact that a trader could ascertain whether a trade mark was registered by searching the register will make it extremely difficult to establish a belief involving ignorance of a registered mark is held on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243313

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v HM Courts Service (South West Region, Devon and Cornwall Area) and others: Admn 14 Jun 2006

The defendants sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to substitute out of time properly named companies as defendants in cases under the 1990 Act.
Held: The court had repeated the error made in the Marco case, by substituting as a defendant a party not before the court. The effect of the district judge’s decision was, in my view, to prefer a charge against a new defendant outside the statutory time limit.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1749 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner QBD 1983
The defendant company traded as A and J Bull Containers. They hired out a builder’s skip which was left out, unlit, on the highway at night. A cyclist rode into it and died. An information was laid against ‘A J Bull Ltd’, charging an offence under . .
Cited – Regina v Greater Manchester Justices Ex Parte Aldi Gmbh and Co Kg; Aldi Gmbh v Mulvenna QBD 28-Dec-1994
The substitution of a defendant in a case before the magistrates was challengeable where it was not a mere mistake in the name of the defendant. The wholesalers who should have been named had been in correspondence for some time with the prosecutor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243311

Whitehead, Regina v: CACD 23 Jun 2006

The defendant appealed against conviction and sentence for indecent assaults on a male person.

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Underhill

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1486

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242700

Regina v G: CACD 12 Apr 2006

The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his human rights.
Held: The question was whether the section conflicted with the presumption of innocence. If it did it could be written down to become compliant. It was necessary to retain the distinction between innocence of criminal conduct and innocence of blameworthy conduct.The section did not infinge the defendant’s human rights, and the section did not require to be read down.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Andrew Smith J, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 821, [2006] 1 WLR 2052, [2007] 1 Lloyds Rep IR 186, [2006] All ER (D) 185, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 500, [2006] Crim LR 930

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 5, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Salabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242609

Taylor v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 28 Apr 2006

The defendant appealed conviction for racially aggravated use of threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour. She said that apart from the police there was nobody else about to give rise to any risk of distress.
Held: It was a quiet residential street late at night. The defendant had been shouting, and it was open to the district judge to find that locals may have heard her and distress caused. In the Holloway case, the judgment of Collins J was preferred. ‘the District Judge arrived at what I regard as a finding that a number of people were on the scene and were near enough to hear the racially abusive language. That seems to me to equate with being able to hear and to fall within the words ‘within the hearing of’ in the subsection. ‘ As to the element of racial aggravation: ‘hostility towards one member of a racial group is sufficient to qualify under paragraph (b) so long as it forms part of the motivation.’

Judges:

Jack J, Keene LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1202 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Holloway v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Oct-2004
The defendant had been naked, filming children playing. He had not been seen doing so. The court considered whether a conviction for disorderly conduct under section 5 required the presence of a third party. It was an express finding by the court . .
Cited – RG and LT v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Jan-2004
The court contrasted allegations under sections 28(1)(a) and 28(1)(b): ‘paragraph (a) form is not concerned so much with the offender’s state of mind but with what he did or said so as to demonstrate racial hostility towards the victim. In contrast, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 17-Nov-2011
The appellant had been approached and searched by police officers and swore at them. He now appealed against a conviction under section 5 of the 1986 Act.
Held: The use of the word ‘fuck’ was common in such situations. Neither officer had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242293

Director of Public Prosecutions v Lennon: Admn 11 May 2006

The DPP appealed against dismissal of a charge under the 1990 Act. The defendant had been involved in a campaign of mail-bombing the complainant’s computer systems with over a half million mails, causing a denial of service. The question was whether it was the defendant or the complainant who determined whether an email would be an authorised modification of the data in the complainant’s system under 17(8)(b).
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Jack J said: ‘the owner of a computer which is able to receive emails is ordinarily to be taken as consenting to the sending of emails to the computer. His consent is to be implied from his conduct in relation to the computer. Some analogy can be drawn with consent by a householder to members of the public to walk up the path to his door when they have a legitimate reason for doing so, and also with the use of a private letter box. But that implied consent given by a computer owner is not without limit. The point can be illustrated by the same analogies. The householder does not consent to a burglar coming up his path. Nor does he consent to having his letter box choked with rubbish.’ There was therefore a case to answer. The defendant had obtained access by ensuring that his emails purported to come from a member of staff. Such access was potentially unauthorised, and the case was remitted.
Keene LJ said: ‘The critical issue is that of ‘consent’ as that word is used in section 17(8) of the Act. I, for my part, see a clear distinction between the receipt of emails which the recipient merely does not want but which do not overwhelm or otherwise harm the server, and the receipt of bulk emails which do overwhelm it. It may be that the recipient is to be taken to have consented to the receipt of the former if he does not configure the server so as to exclude them. But in my judgment he does not consent to receiving emails sent in a quantity and at a speed which are likely to overwhelm the server. Such consent is not to be implied from the fact that the server has an open as opposed to a restricted configuration. ‘

Judges:

Keene LJ, Jack J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1201 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990 3(1)

Citing:

Cited – Zezev and Yarimaka v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and another CACD 2002
Wright J said: ‘But if an individual, by misusing or bypassing any relevant password, places in the files of the computer a bogus e-mail by pretending that the password holder is the author when he is not, then such an addition to such data is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242205

Manchester City Council v Muir and Another: CA 20 Mar 2006

An interim anti-social behaviour order had been obtained against an 11 and a half year old boy in the county court, and an injunction sought against his mother under the 1996 Act. The defence had questioned whether there had been the required consultation with the police. It was then disputed whether that issue had been dealt with before the judge. The judge had clearly decided the consultation issue. The judge on appeal, not knowing of this decided against the council.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Since the requirements as to jurisdiction were the same for interim as final orders the decision of the first judge was binding on the second, and his decision as to the sufficiency of consultation stood. The events at the second hearing were a serious procedural irregularity.

Judges:

May LJ, Keene LJ, Wall LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 423

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Housing Act 1996 156D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – B v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor CA 2003
On an application for an interim anti-social behaviour order, the court must consider whether the application for a final order has been properly made. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241392

Regina v Ben Nien Tao: CACD 1976

Tao was an undergraduate at Cambridge who had occupied a room in a college hostel. He appealed a conviction for being an occupier of premises used for the smoking of cannabis.
Held: His conviction was upheld. Roskill LJ: ‘On those facts it seems to us that the correct legal analysis of the appellant’s right of occupation of that room in the King’s College Hostel was this: he had an exclusive contractual licence from the college to use that room. He was entitled to retain the use of that room to live in, to sleep in, to eat in and to work in: he paid the college for the use of that room. It was, in ‘our view, clearly a licence which gave him not merely a right to use but a sufficient exclusivity of possession, so that he can fairly be said to be ‘the occupier’ of that room for the purpose of section 8. He does not have to be a tenant or to have an estate in land before he can be ‘the occupier’ within that section. It is in every case a question of fact and degree, whether someone can fairly be said to be ‘the occupier’ for the purpose of that section.’ and ‘One asks what is the mischief against which this section is aimed. If one asks that question, it seems to this Court plain that the object is to punish those persons who are able to exclude from their premises potential offenders who wish to smoke cannabis in those premises but do not do so, ‘by making such persons themselves guilty of an offence if they knowingly permit or suffer any of the forbidden activities, those persons being either ‘the occupier’ or ‘concerned in the management’ of those premises. This suggests that Parliament was intending not that a legalistic meaning should be given to the phrase ‘the occupier’ but a common sense interpretation, that is to say ‘the occupier’ was to be regarded as someone who, on the facts of the particular case, could fairly be said to be ‘in occupation’ of the premises in question, so as to have the requisite degree of control over those premises to exclude from them those who might otherwise intend to carry on those forbidden activities I have already indicated. That is the way in which this Court would approach a question of construction, apart from authority.’

Judges:

Roskill LJ

Citations:

(1976) 63 Crim App R 163

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Mogford 1976
(Glamorgan Assizes) The two daughters of parents who owned, but were away from, a house in South Wales had invited some friends in to smoke cannabis.
Held: The daughters could not in those circumstances properly be charged as occupiers of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Read v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for being an occupier of premises used for smoking cannabis. The Appellant lived at the premises together with his common law wife and children as a family. On the facts the magistrates found that the . .
Cited – Campbell v Campbell CC 1982
(Kingston Crown Court) Two brothers, in their mother’s absence but with her permission, held an overnight party at her house. During the evening cannabis was smoked by their guests. The judge had applied Mogford. Judge Oddie: ‘To be ‘the occupier’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241347

Regina v Mogford: 1976

(Glamorgan Assizes) The two daughters of parents who owned, but were away from, a house in South Wales had invited some friends in to smoke cannabis.
Held: The daughters could not in those circumstances properly be charged as occupiers of their parents’ home.

Judges:

Nield J

Citations:

(1976) 63 Crim App R 168

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 89d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Read v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 20-Jun-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for being an occupier of premises used for smoking cannabis. The Appellant lived at the premises together with his common law wife and children as a family. On the facts the magistrates found that the . .
Cited – Regina v Ben Nien Tao CACD 1976
Tao was an undergraduate at Cambridge who had occupied a room in a college hostel. He appealed a conviction for being an occupier of premises used for the smoking of cannabis.
Held: His conviction was upheld. Roskill LJ: ‘On those facts it . .
Cited – Campbell v Campbell CC 1982
(Kingston Crown Court) Two brothers, in their mother’s absence but with her permission, held an overnight party at her house. During the evening cannabis was smoked by their guests. The judge had applied Mogford. Judge Oddie: ‘To be ‘the occupier’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241348

Pegram, Regina (on The Application of) v Bristol Crown Court and Others: Admn 22 Mar 2019

The appellant was taking part in a chaotic demonstration. The officer reached from behind the appellant to take his arm, in order to warn him as to his behaviour. The appellant flailed his arm, striking the officer. He now sought to appeal by case stated from conviction for assaulting an officer in the conduct of his business. Held; The recorder had refused to answer the questions of law as to his reasons for finding the defendant guilty. The court now restated the questions of law for him to state his answer.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1996 89(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637769

Ahmed v Regina: CACD 20 Jan 2015

Appeal against findings of fact as to commission of offences of sexual assault in a minor – defendant unfit to plead.
Held: Further evidence of no assistance.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Openshaw, Dove JJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Crim 2647

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Health, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.541564

Chinegwundoh v Regina: CACD 20 Jan 2015

Held: A jury’s verdict that a person with disability had done the acts charged was not an acquittal and did not allow to the court the power to make a restraining order under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P, Openshaw, Dove JJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 109, [2015] WLR(D) 18, [2015] 1 WLR 2818, [2015] 1 Cr App R 26, [2015] 1 Cr App R (S) 61

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 3, Fraud Act 2006 1, Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.543049

Ahmed v Regina: CACD 31 Jul 2013

Whether the sentencing judge’s order for the detention of the appellant in a young offender institution for public protection was wrong in principle.

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 1393

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.516007

Kenyon v Hart: QBD 3 Feb 1865

The defendant was accused of a trespass by being in the daytime upon certain land in the possession and occupation of Henry Tappenden, in search of game, without the licence or consent of the owner of the land or of any other person having the right to authorize him, and co, contrary to the statute. A pheasant had risen from the respondent’s land and been shot whilst over it but had fallen within the complainant’s land.
Held: Blackburn J said: ‘the object and spirit of this section we shall see that it was to prevent persons entering land in search or pursuit of game in the sense of living game. I cannot think ‘game’ in this section means game whether living or dead.’ The entry on the land was a trespass, but not a criminal trespass within the statute.

Judges:

Blackburn J

Citations:

[1865] EWHC QB J102, (1865) 122 ER 1188, (1865) 6 B and S 249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.263359

Hambleton, Regina v: CACD 15 Jan 2009

Defendant known to a juror – conviction set aside

The defendant appealed against his conviction for burglary. One juror had expressed his concern as to how a jury member had known the defendant and his bad character since an early age. He was convicted on the minimum majority.
Held: It was impossible to see the conviction as safe, and was set aside.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.280419

Environment Agency v Biffa Waste Services and Another: Admn 23 Mar 2006

The Agency appealed dismissal of charges brought by it alleging breach of conditions of their pollution prevention and control permit. The condition referred the standard of odour emitted by reference to a perception by an Agency officer. The defendants claimed this condition was invalid as subjective.
Held: The Agency’s appeal succeeded. The condition did not offend against the requirement for clarity in the criminal law. Thought the court started with the officers evidence, it would evaluate all the circumstances in the usual way. The case was remitted.

Judges:

newman J, Stanlet Burnton J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1102 (Admin), Times 20-Dec-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242193

Regina v Neaven: CACD 15 May 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. Unknown to himself and his advisors he suffered schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
Held: The court upheld the paramount and fundamental importance of the principles in favour of one trial but accepted that there may be cases, where, the evidence of mental illness and substantial impairment being clear, it may be in the interests of justice to admit it. Rix LJ said: ‘This is especially so if the potential vice of tactical decisions is met by undisputed evidence that such decisions were affected by the defendant’s illness itself.’

Judges:

Rix, Mackay LJJ, Goddard QC J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 955, [2006] 6 Archbold News 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Weekes CACD 18-Feb-1999
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as . .
Cited – Regina v Borthwick CACD 18-May-1998
Prior to the trial the appellant had been examined by a psychiatrist, but he refused to allow a more detailed examination to be undertaken and pleaded not guilty on the basis that he denied responsibility for the killing. He was convicted. Shortly . .

Cited by:

Cited – Latus, Regina v CACD 19-Dec-2006
The defendant having been convicted of murder now wished to bring evidence of diminished responsibility to support an appeal for a substituted finding of manslaughter.
Held: The evidence should have been brought at the trial, and could not now . .
Cited – Moyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241683