Brown and Isaac v The State: PC 29 Jan 2003

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder on a joint enterprise basis.
Held: If more than one person participates, in whatever capacity, in attacking a victim, each intending that he be killed, then, if he dies, all are guilty of murder.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The simplest form of joint enterprise, in the context of murder, is when two or more people plan to murder someone and do so. If both participated in carrying out the plan, both are liable. It does not matter who actually inflicted the fatal injury. This might be called the paradigm case of joint enterprise liability.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

[2003] UKPC 10

Links:

PC, PC, Bailii

Cited by:

CitedRahman and Others, Regina v HL 2-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence . .
CitedGnango, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He had engaged in a street battle using guns. A bullet from an opponent killed an innocent passer by. The court was asked whether the principles of joint venture and transferred malice could . .
CitedGnango, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2011
The prosecutor appealed against a successful appeal by the defendant against his conviction for murder. He and an opponent had engaged in a street battle using guns. His opponent had shot an innocent passer by. The court was now asked as to whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179615

Cletus Timothy, Dexter Reid and Sheldon Lewis v The State: PC 22 Apr 1999

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Held: ‘the issue of whether the alleged conduct of Timothy and Reid in taking Sergeant David to the galvanise in the garden and showing him the guns was voluntary should have been decided by the judge on the voir dire. The conduct which is relied on followed on from such violence as the judge accepted was sufficient to make it necessary to exclude the written confession. The issue as to whether the prosecution had established that their conduct in taking Sergeant David to the galvanise and showing him the guns was done voluntarily fell to be decided just as much as the issue whether the written statements were voluntary.’ The evidence recovered as a result of the oppression should not hanve been admitted, and it would not be possible to apply the proviso, and the conictions were quashed.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Patrick Russell

Citations:

[1999] UKPC 19, Appeal No 18 of 1998

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedAjodha v The State PC 1982
(From Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Lord Bridge of Harwich asked: ‘. . when the prosecution proposes to tender in evidence a written statement of confession signed by the accused and the accused denies that he is the author of the . .
CitedThongjai v the Queen; Lee Chun-Kong v the Queen PC 5-Aug-1997
HL (Hong Kong) A challenge on the admissibility of an admission is not inconsistent with a denial that it had been made; one is question for judge, the other a question of fact for the jury. Lord Hutton aid that . .
CitedLam Chi-ming v The Queen PC 1991
The inadmissibility of a confession not proved to be voluntary is perhaps the most fundamental rule of the English criminal law.
Lord Griffiths summarised the justification for the rule excluding evidence obtained improperly. Accepting that ‘a . .
CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179281

Gary Follen v Her Majesty’s Advocate: PC 8 Mar 2001

PC High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) The defendant said that a trial under the section infringed his right to a fair trial, because of a ten month delay by the prosecutor. On arrest he had been recalled to serve the remainer of a sentence, and served longer than the 110 day maximum before his case came to trial.
Held: Upon re-arrest he was serving the time under earlier sentence. The defendant had raised the devolution issue only at this stage. The Committee had itself no original jurisdiction to hear such a complaint. Following Montgomery, it had to be heard first in the High Court of Justiciary. In this case, the court refusing leave to appeal would have avoided much difficulty by giving reasons for its refusal.
Where the Appeal Court refused leave without giving reasons, the Board might find it difficult to appreciate that a petition for special leave to appeal was without merit from the information given on paper by the petitioner.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett

Citations:

DP No. 1 of 2000, [2001] UKPC D2

Links:

PC, PC, Bailii

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b)

Citing:

AppliedWallace v H M Advocate 1959
The running of the 110 day maximum period for detention after which a trial must have begun, was interrupted when the accused began to serve a sentence of imprisonment on another matter. He was no longer being detained because of the committal . .
CitedMontgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .
CitedRe X, Petitioner 1995
. .
CitedJ T A K v H M Advocate 1991
. .

Cited by:

CitedKinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179259

Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills: QBD 7 Mar 2003

The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human rights.
Held: Although the offence is one of strict liability, there is no reversal of the burden of proof. Article 6(2) has no bearing on the reduction or elimination of mens rea requirements, and is therefore compatible with offences of strict or even absolute liability. The section engaged article 6.2 but was compliant. Authorities should however be careful before exercising their discretion to prosecute.
Elias J said: ‘I recognise that the penalties are small, being only a fine, and that is a factor which can properly be considered when determining whether an offence of strict liability is justified. However, in my opinion there is nonetheless a real stigma attached to being found guilty of a criminal offence of this nature. It suggests either an indifference to one’s children, or incompetence at parenting, which in the case of the blameless parent will be unwarranted.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias, The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 418 (Admin), Times 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2318

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 444(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
CitedRegina v Daniel CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction . .
CitedMatthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
CitedRegina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .

Cited by:

CitedSutton London Borough Council v S and Another QBD 26-Oct-2004
Parents had had charges brought against them by the appellant for failing to ensure the attendance of their child at school dismissed. The authority appealed.
Held: The authority should have considered more carefully whether it was appropriate . .
CitedRegina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
CitedLondon Borough of Sutton v S Admn 26-Oct-2004
The Borough appealed against acquittal by the magistrates of the defendant parent accused of failure to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. The child had attended only irregularly. The parents had contacted the school and . .
CitedIsle of Wight Council v Platt Admn 13-May-2016
The Council appealed by case stated against a decision by magistrates that a parent who took his child out of school to take a holiday hod not failed to ensure that the child attended regularly. The record was otherwise regular and satisfactory.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179544

R v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another: PC 1 Nov 2002

Section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. It is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of any particular violation of an individual’s Convention rights should be. Parliament has decided that members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate, should have no power to do acts that are incompatible with any of the Convention rights.

Judges:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 56

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Scotland Act 1998 57(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal fromR v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another HCJ 31-May-2002
. .

Cited by:

CitedSinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178864

Regina v Murray: CACD 24 Jan 2003

The applicant appealed against her convictions in 1989 after a referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The case against her had been made by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, with officers who had later been discredited, and super-grasses who had also been discredited.
Held: Various appeals had been successful or rejected over the years on similar grounds. It was clear in this case that the jury had considered the evidence, and rejected cases against other defendants where the case was not corroborated. The appellants case did have corroboration, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Douglas Brown Mrs Justice Hallett

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178795

Winzar v Regina: CACD 20 Dec 2002

The defendant appealed conviction for the murder of her husband. It was said she had injected him with a fatal dose of insulin. He was incapacitated but not diabetic.
Held: The deceased’s brain had been destroyed before any prosecution was anticipated, and no stay would have been proper for abuse of process. The defence’s inability to examine it did not make the proceedings an abuse. The judge was right to leave to the jury the expert evidence that the source of the insulin was exogenous (injected). Acknowledging the unusual complexity and importance of the expert evidence, the court admitted new medical evidence on appeal. Even so, the case remained clear that the only explanation for the hypoglyceamia was exogenous insulin. The test (Pendleton) was not whether the court believed the defendant to be guilty but whether the conviction was safe. In this case it was.

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson Mr Justice Harrison The Honourable Mr Justice Cooke

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2950

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedRegina v Medway CACD 25-Mar-1999
The court considered a complaint as to the prosecution’s failure to preserve evidence: ‘We recognise that in cases where evidence has been tampered with, lost or destroyed it may well be that a defendant will be disadvantaged. It does not . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Steven Martin) CACD 23-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder wishing to bring in evidence of his diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was admitted, but the conviction was upheld. The court took the opportunity to give . .
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178539

Regina v Ishtiaq Ahmed: CACD 6 Dec 2002

Approach to fresh evidence produced on appeal.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Simon, Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2781

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedKelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .
CitedNoye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178456

Bamber v Regina: CACD 12 Dec 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright, Mr Justice Henriques

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
See AlsoBamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .

Cited by:

CitedBamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178398

Shaw, Henry, Boreland, Mullings and Wright v The Queen: PC 15 Oct 2002

PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed convictions for three capital murders, saying that an eye witness’ statement had not been disclosed at trial or admitted on appeal. This evidence descrinbed the assailants as wearing balaclavas, which cast doubt on the other eye witness identification.
Held: The evidence was that the statement was known to the defence, and that it did not contradict the prosecution case. Howebver the statement was of such a character that it should not have been rejected by the court of appeal without hearing the witness in person. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to hear that evidence.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 53

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Citing:

CitedRegina v Sales CACD 2000
The court gave guidance on the proper approach of an appellate court to an application to adduce fresh evidence is contained in the judgment of the English Court of Appeal: ‘Proffered fresh evidence in written form is likely to be in one of three . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177794

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Atkinson, Hughes: QBD 9 Oct 2002

The defendants were prosecuted for various offences relating to the selling and marketing of veterinary products without being licensed. Their cases were dismissed, when the prosecution put forward evidence as to the nature of what was being sold, but only in the form of the labels on the packages. The defence successfully argued that chemical analysis should have been provided.
Held: Under the 1988 Act, the labels were statements and admissible as evidence. Under the 1994 Regulations, the ingredients did not need to be proved. Cases remitted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Bell

Citations:

Gazette 07-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Medicines Act 1968 58(2)(a) 67, Medicines (Veterinary Drugs)(Prescription Only) Order 1991, Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medical Products Regulations 1994, Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1)

Crime, Health, Evidence

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177380

Conn, Regina v: CACD 27 Apr 2018

Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – single offence of indecent assault, and two offences of rape. Held; Both appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 1752

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.628168

Webb v Beavan: 25 Jan 1844

In trespass for entering a yard, thc defendant was allowed to plead that he entered for the purpose of viewing a mare then in a stable in the yard, which had been recently stolen from him.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 160, (1844) 6 Man and G 1055, (1844) 134 ER 1220

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.304752

In re G and S: CACD 11 Jul 2002

The defendants had been acquitted on the direction of the judge at trial, and the AG now appealed on a point of law, namely: ‘Whether on (a) a charge under section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and (b) a charge under section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, where the accused has used a false instrument or furnished false information with a view to obtaining money or other property it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had no legal entitlement to the money or other property in question’
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2003] 1 Cr App R 8, [2002] EWCA Crim 1768, [2002] 3 All ER 840, [2002] Crim LR 845, [2003] 1 WLR 395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175258

Regina v Collins: CACD 5 May 1972

The defendant was accused of burglary. He had followed a woman from a public house, entered her bedroom via a ladder and had sex with her. She thought he was her boyfriend. He denied entry as a trespasser with intent to rape, saying she had invited him in as he was about to enter the window.
Held: He entered as a trespasser if he entered knowing or being reckless as to whether he was entering unlawfully. The jury had to conclude that he had already made a substantial entry into the house before he had been mistakenly invited in. The direction had not been in adequate terms, and the conviction was overturned. The common law doctrine of trespass ab initio has no application to burglary under the Theft Act 1968.

Judges:

Edmund Davies and Stephenson L.JJ. and Boreham J.

Citations:

[1972] EWCA Crim 1, [1972] 2 All ER 1105, [1973] 3 WLR 243, 56 Cr App Rep 554, 136 JP 605, [1973] QB 100

Links:

lip, Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174740

Culpepper v The State: PC 20 Dec 2000

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. An elderly lady had been raped and murdered. Other evidence had been destroyed in a fire at the police station, and the prosecution relied upon fingerprints found on spectacles found near the body. The defendant argued that the very substantial delay of six years after arrest and before trial prejudiced his ability to defend himself, and was an abuse.
Held: Stay for abuse for delay must be exceptional, and in this case the defendant had not shown sufficient prejudice to establish abuse. The loss of evidence had prejudiced his ability to defend himself by showing that the samples were not his. However the defendant had had time and opportunity before their loss to establish this and had not done so. Other points raised by the defendant did not affect the decision. Appeal denied.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hutton, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2000] UKPC 51

Links:

Bailii, PC

Citing:

CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174689

Gaetan Seneque and Jacques David v The Director of Public Prosecutions: PC 24 Jul 2002

PC (Mauritius) – The applicants had been charged under the Code of publishing a false news story of a nature to disturb the public peace.
Held: To make out the charge, the prosecution had to show that the public peace was likely to be disturbed. It was not enough to establish that the story was false and that the author was highly critical of the government. It had also to be shown that there was indeed some threat to public order which would arise from the story, though it was not necessary to show any actual breach of public order. There was no such evidence in this case, and the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 23-Aug-2002, [2002] UKPC 42

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Mauritius Criminal Code 229(1)(b)

Commonwealth, Crime, Media

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174727

Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc: CACD 26 Jul 2002

The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon evidence given by unregistered informants, but whose status and involvement had been hidden from the judge.
Held: The need to protect the system of justice meant that courts should not be slow to overturn convictions where it was shown that prosecution behaviour would amount to an abuse of process. In this case also freely entered into guilty pleas were set aside because they had been entered on the basis that the prosecution had made full disclosure where in fact they had not. The Court referred to the possibility of the prosecution case being regarded as ‘tainted beyond redemption, however strong the evidence against the defendant may otherwise be’). Retrials were not possible because sentences had been served and such trials would have insurmountable difficulties.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Colman and Mr Justice Roderick Evans

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1904, [2003] 1 Crim App Rep 288

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

FollowedRegina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedRegina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
CitedMaxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174456

Felix Augustus Durity v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 13 May 2002

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant had been a magistrate, and challenged the application of a limitation period to his claim. He had been wrongfully suspended from his work, and the proceedings had been delayed and protracted. No effective progress having been made, he sought to challenge the original suspension. The court refused to hear the application as debarred by limitation. He said that the limitation period should have no application in a case involving a constitutional challenge and infringement of his human rights.
Held: Where the state became liable in tort, it was appropriate that limitation defences available to tortfeasors should also be available to the state, but the considerations on constitutional proceedings are different, and the limitation period did not apply. As a magistrate, making a decision in good faith, even if incorrectly, to allow that mistake to be charged as misconduct was to impugn the independence of the judiciary. The failure to pursue the case over a long period of time, with the magistrate suspended amounted to an abuse of power.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 20, Appeal No 52 0f 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC

Crime, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174479

Goatley v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of the Netherlands: QBD 20 Jun 2002

The second respondent sought the extradition of the applicant for trial for drugs offences. He said that the alleged offences were extra terratorial to the second defendant, but that extradition was restricted to intra territorial offences.
Held: The importing of cannabis is an intra-territorial offence, as is a conspiracy to commit that offence. There was jurisdiction, and the request for habeas corpus failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Nelson J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1209 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedRegina v Wall 1974
The charge was fraudulent evasion of the restriction on importation of dangerous drugs. For that offence to be committed, the drugs in question must necessarily arrive in this country.
Held: If sending a letter from abroad to England . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174118

Leslie Tiwari v The State (Appeal No 76 of 2001): PC 29 May 2002

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed convictions for rape and other offences based upon identification evidence. He had not been represented at the trial. He had not been warned of his freedom to call witnesses.
Held: Where a defendant was unrepresented, the court should warn him of the advisability of having professional representation. Witnesses whose evidence might have been called by him would have given admissible and relevant evidence. The case was remitted for that evidence to be admitted, and the conviction re-examined by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. Time spent in prison after a notice of appeal has been lodged with the Board, should count toward time served.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 29, (Appeal No 76 of 2001)

Links:

PC, PC, Leslie Tiwari v. The S’ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedRegina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
CitedRegina v Carter (Josef) 1960
The defendant appealed against his conviction. Though unrepresented at trial, the judge had not informed him of his opportunity to call witnesses. Counsel had failed to attend and an adjournment has been refused.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A . .

Cited by:

CitedKumar Ali v The State (Appeal 56 of 2004) and Leslie Tiwari v The State PC 2-Nov-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked to determine the date from which an unsuccessful appellant’s sentence should run. Pending an appeal or whilst on remand, a prisoner would be held in less demanding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth, Evidence

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172279

Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah: HCJ 8 Dec 1999

The court considered whether the criminal complaint that the defendants had been part of a conspiracy to set a bomb aboard an airliner which exploded over Scotland, was justiciable in Scotland. Lord Sutherland: ‘Where however, a crime of the utmost gravity has been in fact committed in a particular country and it can be shown that that crime is the culmination of a long drawn out and complex conspiracy, it appears to me quite illogical to say that that country has no interest in putting the conspirators on trial for their part in what has happened, even though their activities were all carried out abroad. Defence counsel recognise that this is undoubtedly so in relation to the charge of murder in Scotland. I see no logical reason why the same principle should not apply to the charge of conspiring to commit the final criminal act, which is alleged to be the culmination and the whole purpose of the conspiracy.’

Judges:

Lord Sutherland

Citations:

[1999] ScotHC 248

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See AlsoPet and Complaint of Abdelbasset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhima v Times Newspapers Ltd and John Witherow and Nicholas Rufford HCJ 10-Aug-1999
. .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Doot HL 1973
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to import dangerous drugs into the United Kingdom. Their counsel submitted that they could not be tried in England since the conspiracy had been formed abroad.
Held: There could be no breach of any . .
CitedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .

Cited by:

CitedOffice of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Ali Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Prisoners In the Prison of Zeist, Camp Zeist (Kamp Van Zeist), the Netherlands HCJ 10-Oct-2000
. .
See AlsoAbdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 29-Jun-2001
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoAbdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 15-Oct-2008
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Nov-2008
. .
See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah HCJ 31-Jan-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170756

Scarsbrook Or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 7 Jun 2001

Judges:

Lord Justice General

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See AlsoScarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Sep-2000
The purpose of orders under the section is to deal with reports of proceedings which are fair and accurate, but which should nonetheless be postponed, not with other material the publication of which might constitute a contempt of Court. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoScarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate (No.2) HCJ 21-Jun-2001
The court considered the defence of diminished responsibility to a charge of murder.
Held: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: ‘It is, of course, impossible to attempt to describe the ambit of the doctrine of diminished responsibility without even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170591

Hoekstra and Van Rijs and Van Rijs and Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 23 Jan 2002

Judges:

Lord Coulsfield and Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Osborne

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 20

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Citing:

See AlsoNote of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence By Lieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 28-Jan-2000
. .
See AlsoLieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Endrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Mar-2000
. .
See AlsoLiewe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Hm Advocate HCJ 14-Apr-2000
A judge, having given judgment in an appeal case involving the application of the convention on Human Rights, wrote and published an article critical of the convention, and of its application in national law. The appeal decision was set aside, since . .
See AlsoLieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-Jun-2000
. .
CitedHoekstra and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate High Court of Justiciary PC 26-Oct-2000
The Privy Council has no standing to act as a general court of appeal on Scottish law. The jurisdiction given to it by the Act, was limited as prescribed by the Act to what are called devolution issues, issues related to the acts of devolution. Not . .
CitedHoekstra and Van Rijs etc v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 18-Jan-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170523

Smith v Procurator Fiscal, Dumbarton: HCJ 28 Sep 2001

The appellant challenged her common law public order conviction, on the basis that the charge did not provide a clear definition of what amounted to the offence, and so infringed her human rights.

Judges:

Lord Coulsfield and Lord Osborne and Lord Sutherland

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 121

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Hman Rights 7 10

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170544

Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk: HCJ 8 Mar 2002

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the machine used to take his sample of breath did not conform to the necessary type. It had been manufactured by an independent company. Though not approved it was identical to the approved machine. He was convicted on the basis that approval was of a type of a machine, not of a machine.

Judges:

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Hamilton and Lord Morison

Citations:

[2002] ScotHC 25

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedChief Constable of Northumbria v Brown 1986
The defendant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. He challenged the use of a machine for the breath test which was not an Intoximeter.
Held: The charge was valid. . .

Cited by:

CitedGrant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170500

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 14 Mar 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice General and Lord Kirkwood and Lord Osborne and Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 68, 2002 SLT 1433, 2002 SCCR 509, 2002 JC 99, 2002 GWD 11-335, [2002] ScotHC 30

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Citing:

See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah HCJ 8-Dec-1999
The court considered whether the criminal complaint that the defendants had been part of a conspiracy to set a bomb aboard an airliner which exploded over Scotland, was justiciable in Scotland. Lord Sutherland: ‘Where however, a crime of the utmost . .
See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Ali Amin Khalifa Fhimah, Prisoners In the Prison of Zeist, Camp Zeist (Kamp Van Zeist), the Netherlands HCJ 10-Oct-2000
. .
See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah HCJ 31-Jan-2001
. .
See AlsoAbdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 29-Jun-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedOffice of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 15-Oct-2008
. .
See AlsoMegrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Nov-2008
. .
CitedFraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170497

Hoekstra and Van Rijs etc v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 18 Jan 2001

Judges:

Lord Justice General and Lord Philip and Lord Weir

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 1

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Citing:

See AlsoNote of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence By Lieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 28-Jan-2000
. .
See AlsoLieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Endrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Mar-2000
. .
See AlsoLiewe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Hm Advocate HCJ 14-Apr-2000
A judge, having given judgment in an appeal case involving the application of the convention on Human Rights, wrote and published an article critical of the convention, and of its application in national law. The appeal decision was set aside, since . .
See AlsoLieuwe Hoekstra and Jan Van Rijs and Ronny Van Rijs and Hendrik Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-Jun-2000
. .
CitedHoekstra and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate High Court of Justiciary PC 26-Oct-2000
The Privy Council has no standing to act as a general court of appeal on Scottish law. The jurisdiction given to it by the Act, was limited as prescribed by the Act to what are called devolution issues, issues related to the acts of devolution. Not . .

Cited by:

CitedHoekstra and Van Rijs and Van Rijs and Van Rijs v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Jan-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170629

Gough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: CA 20 Mar 2002

The appellants challenged the legality under European law of orders under the Act restricting their freedom of movement, after suspicion of involvement in football violence.
Held: Although the proceedings under which orders were made were civil, the standard of proof required was virtually that of a criminal court. Public policy could be used to justify an infringement of the citizens’ rights under European Law. A football banning order should only be imposed where there were strong grounds for concluding that the individual subject to the order had a propensity for taking part in football hooliganism. Noting the serious consequences: ‘This should lead the Justices to apply an exacting standard of proof that will, in practice, be hard to distinguish from the criminal standard.’
Lord Phillips MR referred to the kind of intelligence information which was being collected, stating: ‘The tactics of the police have had to respond to this developing phenomenon. There is a football intelligence system co-ordinated by NCIS. Each club has a Football Intelligence Officer, who is known to the prominents as they are known to him. In relation to each match … information is collected by the police ‘spotters’ who watch the prominents. The information is collated in an information/intelligence report. The profiles are prepared in reliance on the contents of such reports, and consist in short notes, each giving an outline description of the particular prominent’s involvement in actual or threatened trouble in relation to any given match.’

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 351, [2002] QB 1213, [2002] 3 WLR 289, [2002] 2 All ER 985

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Football Spectators Act 1989 14B, Football (Disorder) Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedB v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary QBD 5-Apr-2000
The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section . .
CitedRegina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Appeal fromGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire; Regina (Miller) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court; Lilley v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Jul-2001
Challenges were made to the powers banning the free movement of those convicted of offences of violence. Orders had been made banning the applicants from attending football matches, and requiring attendance at police stations at times of matches . .

Cited by:

DistinguishedRegina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
CitedCampbell v Hamlet (as executrix of Simon Alexander) PC 25-Apr-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
CitedIn re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .
CitedNewman v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis Admn 25-Mar-2009
The defendant appealed against the admission of evidence on the respondent’s application for a football bannng order. A witness statement was based on intelligence reports which meant that the witness could not be effectively examined by he defence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168533

The Attorney General for the Cayman Islands v Roberts: PC 21 Mar 2002

(Cayman Islands) The Attorney General appealed against the overturning of a conviction of the defendant for the supply of drugs. A substance had been found under a stone in the defendant’s yard, which had been certified to contain cocaine hydrochloride. The defendant challenged the assertion that this proved the case. Notice of the intention to produce the certificate had not been given as required by the statute.
Held: Where a defendant is professionally represented, any objection to the form of evidence must be taken at the trial. The wording of the Act was that such evidence was ‘not receivable’ in evidence. This was distinguishable from saying it could not be admitted, and the certificate was admissible despite the failure to give proper notice. The certificate did not say that the substance found was a controlled drug, but the word ‘cocaine’ had been found to be a generic name, including the various forms and derivatives. The appeal was allowed, and the case returned to the Appeal court for the remaining appeal issues to be considered.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Appeal No 53 0f 2001, [2002] UKPC 18

Links:

PC, PC, PC, The Attorney General f’ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Law, Law 13 of 1973 (revised 1995) (Cayman Islands) 4(1)(k)

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedRegina v Banks 1972
. .
CitedRegina v Greensmith CACD 1983
The word ‘cocaine’ when used in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is used in the generic sense so that it includes the specific forms, derivatives or preparations of it which come within the wording of paragraphs 2 to 5 of Part I . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168109

Regina v Rennie Gilbert: PC 21 Mar 2002

(Grenada) The defendant had successfully appealed a conviction for attempted rape. He said that he had been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, and that the judge should have given an appropriate warning to the jury. The crown appealed.
Held: English law now gave a discretion to the judge as to the need for such a warning, and its strength and context. It had in the past been predicated on a supposed tendency of women complainants to lie. Turnbull warnings were directed at the reliability of an identification, and not to the veracity of a complainant. In this case the warning might not have been needed, and the crown’s appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Philip Otton

Citations:

Appeal No 10 of 2001, [2002] UKPC 17, [2002] 2 AC 531

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedRegina v Henry 1968
. .
CitedJames v The Queen PC 1970
. .

Cited by:

CitedAG for the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia v Steinhoff PC 19-Jul-2005
(Akrotiri and Dhekelia) The defendant had appealed convictions for rape and attempted rape. He had criticised the arrangements for protecting the complainant when giving evidence, which had not complied with the 1999 Act. His appeal succeeded in . .
CitedRegina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168108

Regina v Horsman: CACD 14 Dec 2001

‘This is an appeal by Malcolm Horsman against his conviction of murder on 1 June 2000 at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Hyam, the Recorder of London, and a jury. It is argued on his behalf that the judge mis-directed the jury on provocation, and that, in addition, there is evidence which should be admitted and received by this court under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.’

Judges:

Judge LJ, Holman, MacKay JJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 3040

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167983

Dyer v Watson and Burrows: PC 29 Jan 2002

Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing rights, which could be broken notwithstanding absence of effect on the fairness of the trial. The threshold for delay was high, but once established the court must look at the particular case, referring to the complexity of the case, contributions to the delay by the defendant and by the prosecution. Shortage of facilities for prosecutors was not to be accepted as a valid reason for delay. Neither defendant was held in custody. In one case, police officers complained of a twenty month delay. That was not sufficient to breach their rights. A youth complained of a twenty seven month delay. He was still only sixteen at the date of trial This delay did infringe his rights. When examining the reasonable time provisions for children, the court must also look to obligations under the UN Convention.
(The High Court of Justiciary) During a trial, the appellant police officers gave evidence which the sheriff openly said appeared to him to be perjured. The officers complained that the delay in prosecution was a devolution issue, and an infringement of their rights to a speedy trial. The second case involved a delayed case involving investigation of allegations of child sex abuse by a youth.
Held: The delay from April 1998 to January 1999 had to be looked at in the context of the simplicity of the case against the officers and the need for prosecutions of police officers to be given priority. In JK’s case the prosecution was required to proceed within a year and had failed to do so. The procedural law of Scotland is distinctive in including stringent rules to avoid delay in criminal proceedings, but the statutory rules do not apply to summary proceedings. The reasonable detention and reasonable time requirements confer important rights on the individual, and they should not be watered down or weakened, but the rights do not exist in a vacuum. The convention is concerned not with departures from the ideal, but with infringements of basic human rights. In the police officers’ case a delay of twenty months was not enough of itself to be such an infringement. The prosecutors appeal against the action being struck out was upheld. In JKs case as a child it was important that proceedings be speedy. In this case an overall delay of up to 28 months was in the absence of proper explanation from the crown, unreasonable.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 04-Feb-2002, (DRA Nos 1 and 2 of 2001), 2002 SLT 229, [2004] 1 AC 379, [2002] UKPC D1

Links:

PC, PC, PC, Bailii, PC

Statutes:

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Justice, European Convention on Human Rights, Scotland Act 1998 6, Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 65(1), United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Citing:

CitedEckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
CitedMcFadyen v Annan 1992
The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair.
Held: The question should be whether the . .
CitedDarmalingum v The State PC 10-Jul-2000
(Mauritius) The constitutional right of a defendant to have his case tried within a reasonable time applied not just to the initial trial but also to any appeal arising from that trial. Where there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay between . .

Cited by:

CitedMills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
CitedLloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
CitedDepartment for Work and Pensions v Courts Admn 3-May-2006
The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, . .
CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
CitedO’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Scotland, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167604

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 exclusively conjunctively. It is the agreement which is at the heart of a conspiracy charge.

Judges:

Lord Justice May, Mr Justice Goldring and Mr Justice Gross

Citations:

Times 31-Jan-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 6, [2002] 2 Cr App R 26

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Siracusa 1989
. .

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167521

Regina v Romeo: CACD 9 Sep 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction for sex offences, saying the court had misdirected the jury as to the weight to be given to the distress shown by the complainant as corroboration of her allegation.
Held: Old cases should be looked at carefully when they dated from a time when corroboration had been a requirement. The law had not been considered in case law since the change. Applying Chauhan, the judge’s direction was entirely adequate, drawing the juries attention to that distress or apparent distress and to the fact that it could have been caused by a variety of circumstances and was to be considered carefully.

Judges:

Scott-Baker LJ, Jackson, HuntJJ

Citations:

Times 02-Oct-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Wilson CACD 1974
. .
CitedRegina v Knight CACD 1966
. .
AppliedRegina v Chauhan CACD 1981
Evidence of a complainant’s distress is not admissible unless the complainant is unaware of being observed, and if the distress is exhibited at the time of, or shortly after, the offence itself, or in circumstances which appear to implicate the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.186526

Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Dec 2001

The defendant had been convicted of using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress, when she defaced the US flag, and stood on it before a US military officer. She said that the defacing of flags was a common form of protest, that she had no intention to cause alarm or distress, and that any such restriction unjustifiably restricted her right to freedom of expression.
Held: The conviction could not be supported. It was a proper purpose to prevent behaviour which caused insult and distress, and there is a pressing social need in a multicultural society to prevent the denigration of objects of veneration and symbolic importance for one cultural group. Nevertheless, the second stage of the test looked to whether any infringement was a proportionate response. The availability of alternate ways of expressing her feelings was only one factor, and the judge had taken insufficient note of the need to protect freedom of speech.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2002, [2001] EWHC Admin 1125

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 5, European Convention on Human Rights Art 10

Citing:

CitedTexas v Johnson 1989
. .
CitedThe Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .
CitedVigon v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 9-Dec-1997
Using a hidden video camera, passively to film women in changing rooms, was an act of the camera owner, and constituted the insulting behaviour offence. . .
CitedBrutus 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 . .
CitedHandyside 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:

CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
CitedHayes v Willoughby CA 13-Dec-2011
Harassment Occurs on the Result, not the Intention
The claimant said that over several years, the respondent had pursued him in many ways challenging his management of a company’s affairs. Complaints had been investigated by the insolvency service and by the police who had discovered nothing to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167392

Regina (on the Application of Fuller, Wright, Tarr and Booth) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and Another: Admn 12 Dec 2001

The applicants sought to test the human rights compatibility of the section when applied to gypsies. The travellers sought to stay on land within the district. The local authority used its policy, and agreed to tolerate the encampment for a short time. There was a serious incident with police officers being held temporarily. After refusing to leave, police raided the encampment. Held The section had to be construed tightly since it created a criminal offence. 61(1) requires that the trespassers have not complied with the occupier’s request that they leave as a condition of the making of a direction by the police The question was not whether the section infringed rights, but whether a direction given under the section was an infringement. A landowner requesting trespassers to remove their goods from his land is not infringing the right to possession of goods. The section provided remedies and was proportionate. Their presence on the land was temporary, and the encampment was not their home within the article, but there could be an interference with family life. In this case though the travellers had not been given opportunity to comply with the request for them to leave, and the reaction of the police was disproportionate. The direction was not valid.

Judges:

Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1039

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Human Rights, Land

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167345

Regina v Hughes: CACD 18 Dec 2001

Appeal against conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the evidence we have heard raised no doubt in our minds, and we do not consider that it might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict if it had been given at trial.’

Judges:

Mance LJ, Penry-Davey, Leveson JJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 2808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167409

Regina v Clive Louden Carass: CACD 19 Dec 2001

When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section did not transfer the burden from the prosecution.
Held: To justify a transfer of the burden of proof, it had to be shown that this was required, and a persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden was not justified. There was no sufficient threat to society which required a higher burden. The words should be read to require the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2845, [2002] 1 WLR 1214, [2002] 2 Cr App R 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 206 (1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

Cited by:

DistinguishedRegina v Daniel CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction . .
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
Wrongly DecidedSheldrake 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Insolvency, Evidence

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167393

Regina v Heather Grant: CACD 22 Nov 2001

The defendant was accused of murder. She had been found to be under a disability under the Act, but wanted to put forward a defence of provocation. Under Antoine, it was clear that matters of mens rea under the Act were not for the jury. The suggestion of provocation was one which was as to the effect of another’s behaviour on the defendant’s state of mind. The disability under the Act also went to the defendant’s state of mind, and the two were not consistent. Having established that she suffered a mental disability, the defence of provocation was no longer available.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Richards, And, Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-2001, Gazette 17-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2644

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4A, Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Antoine HL 30-Mar-2000
The appellant sought to argue that despite having been found unfit to plead under the 1964 Act, it was still open to him to argue that the defence under section 2 of the 1957 Act applied, and that he was entitled to be plead diminished . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.166927

Regina v West London Youth Court, Ex Parte M and Others: QBD 7 Jul 1999

Several youths were carrying around unlit petrol bombs in a public place, but there were no members of the public about, nor any rival gang with whom there might have been a clash. They were properly convicted of affray, despite this absence of anybody to perceive a threat.

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-1999

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88704

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 20 Feb 2001

Where a person was put in fear of violence but the violence was directed elsewhere, that could still found an allegation, but the complainant would have to give direct evidence that she had been put in fear, and it would still have to be shown that the defendant could have expected to cause fear. The court had to look at each set of circumstances and the Act. Parliament could not legislate for each set of circumstances.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88437

Regina v Colchester Justices Ex Parte Abbott: QBD 13 Mar 2001

When calculating the value of damage for the purpose of deciding whether an allegation of criminal damage could be referred to the Crown Court, the damage was the replacement value and not the consequential losses. An activist was accused of damaging genetically engineered crops. The replacement value was andpound;750, but the consequential losses amounted to over andpound;5000. It was triable only at the Magistrates Court.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88416

Regina v Rumble: CACD 2003

The defendant had surrendered to his bail at a Magistrates Court. There was no usher and no security staff. Following imposition of a custodial sentence, the defendant escaped through the public entrance. It was submitted on an appeal that the defendant was not under ‘direct’ control of anyone.
Held: Buxton LJ dealt with this submission peremptorily: ‘That argument only has to be stated for it to be seen that it be extremely odd if it were correct. Once a person surrenders at the court as Mr Rumble did and was obliged by law to do, it would be very surprising indeed if the court’s right to control him, and his vulnerability to the offence of escaping, depended upon the precise nature of the physical constraints imposed upon him.’ The common law of offence of escape which is indictable and for which the sentence is at large.

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 770, (2003) 167 JP 205

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEvans, Regina v CACD 16-Nov-2011
The defendant came to court, and his counsel informed the court of this, but then he left. Had he surrendered to his bail? He surrendered and was taken to court. He pleaded guilty to the Bail Act offence and was sentenced, but then was allowed to . .
CitedDhillon, Regina v CACD 23-Nov-2005
The defendant had been arrested and then taken to hospital for treatment. On completion of his treatment, he could not find the constable, so went home. He now appealed from conviction of escape contrary to common law.
Held: The prosecution . .
CitedJalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.471545

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 with him, practise the Catholic religion or ensure his son’s education.
Held: Confinement on such a small island was a deprivation of liberty under the convention. ‘The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is nonetheless merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. Although the process of classification into one or other of these categories sometimes proves to be no easy task in that some borderline cases are a matter of pure opinion, the Court cannot avoid making the selection upon which the applicability or inapplicability of Article 5 depends.’ and ‘In order to determine whether someone has been ‘deprived of his liberty’ within the meaning of article 5, the starting point must be [the] concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question.’ The procedure did not however involve the determination of a criminal charge against him within the meaning of article 6.

Citations:

(1980 Series A No 39), 7367/76, [1980] ECHR 5, (1980) 3 EHRR 333, (1981) 3 EHRR 333

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedMcDonald v Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ 20-Mar-2003
The defendant had been granted bail subject to conditions including a requirement that he must not leave his house for more than two hours a day. He complained that this infringed his Article 5 right to liberty.
Held: The right to freedom was . .
CitedGillan and Quinton, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another CA 29-Jul-2004
The appellants had challenged the lawfulness of being stopped and searched by police. The officers relied on an authorisation made under the 2000 Act. They had been on their way to attending an arms fair, intending to demonstrate.
Held: The . .
CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
CitedGillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
AppliedSecretary 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 . .
CitedAustin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-Oct-2007
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of . .
CitedAustin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
CitedSecretary 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: . .
CitedG v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
CitedG v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
CitedRe DE, JE v DE, Surrey County Council and EW FD 29-Dec-2006
JE, wife of DE, who had been taken into residential care by the Local authority, said that the authority had infringed his Article 5 and 8 rights on transferring him between homes. The authority asserted that he did not have mental capacity. She . .
CitedDolan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another CA 1-Dec-2020
Lockdown Measures not Ultra Vires the 1984 Act
The appellants, a businessman, and mother, appealed from refusal of leave to challenge regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020 and since which introduced what was commonly known as a ‘lockdown’ in England. They . .
CitedDolan and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another Admn 6-Jul-2020
Challenge to closures of schools and other provisions taken under the Regulations.
Held: The Secretary of State had the legal power to make the Regulations. In making and maintaining the Regulations, he had not fettered his discretion. He had . .
CitedWelsh Ministers v PJ SC 17-Dec-2018
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose . .
CitedJalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.164899

Tilly v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 16 Oct 2001

The applicant had been convicted of aggravated trespass. She had gone onto farm land and destroyed genetically modified crops. She appealed.
Held: For the offence of aggravated trespass, it was necessary to show unlawful interference with activities carried out on land by people present on the land. The definition implied the intimidation of others which was not present without them being present.

Judges:

Rafferty J

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 821

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68

Cited by:

CitedNero and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 29-Mar-2012
Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166878

Jones, Regina v: CACD 3 Jul 2015

Appeal against conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Allegation where wife was victim, but she had declined to give evidence, and not attended. The Court’s attention was not drawn to section 116 of the 2006 Act, and the evidence admitted without explanation as to how it had been applied.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘There are many practical measures that could have been adopted in our view to ensure, first of all, that this complainant was located in a timely fashion, that her attendance at court was ensured, to protect her welfare and the welfare of her children and, importantly, to ensure the rights of this appellant, however fanciful his defence, to cross-examine the complainant on the matters that she alleged against him. The fact that to embark upon those measures would have meant a delay in the commencement of the trial or would otherwise have imposed upon the police officers concerned the necessity to track down the complainant does not provide, in our opinion, a sufficient basis upon which the prosecution could legitimately have made this ‘hearsay’ application to the court.
We stress that there will be many cases of domestic violence where it may become inevitable and absolutely necessary for a court to ensure justice is done and to admit the statement of the complainant. In such cases it often will be the case that the complainant is the only witness, but this in itself is not a good reason necessarily to refuse such applications. What we do stress equally, however, is that if such an application is to be made, it should be properly based, it should be properly evidenced, and the court has a responsibility to properly investigate the matter. We regret that in this case that investigation does not appear to have taken place. We cannot be satisfied from the transcript of the ruling that the judge did take into account appropriately all matters concerning this complainant’s absence, nor take all necessary steps as would ensure her welfare and the fairness of the trial by obtaining her attendance.’

Judges:

Macur LJ, Walker J, Zeidman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 1317, (2016) 180 JP 132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.553262

Jones, Regina v: CCNI 10 Sep 2010

‘This ruling determines an application by the Defendant that I should recuse myself as trial judge. The application is based on my knowledge of the following information relating to the history of this prosecution:
(a) The earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal[1]
(b) A subsequent retrial of the Defendant, which was aborted and had no outcome in consequence.’

Judges:

Mccloskey J

Citations:

[2010] NICC 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.430626

Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, they had acted contrac bonos mores. They complained that the offence was insufficiently precise as to allow them to know what was required.
Held: The case concerned an interference with freedom of expression which was not expressed to be a ‘sanction’, or punishment, for behaviour of a certain type, but rather an order, imposed on the applicants, not to breach the peace or behave contra bonos mores in the future. Conduct contra bonos mores is defined as behaviour which is ‘wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens’ The offence lacked the quality of being ‘prescribed by law’ and infringed article 10.

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

(1999) 30 EHRR 241, 25594/94, [1999] ECHR 133, [2000] Crim LR 185, 8 BHRC 104

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10 11, Justices of the Peace Act 1361

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

CitedRegina v County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1948
A breach of the peace does not constitute a criminal offence. . .
CitedRegina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .
CitedPercy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .
CitedRex v Sandbach, ex parte Williams KBD 1935
The Court rejected the view that a person could not be bound over to be of good behaviour when there was no reason to apprehend a breach of the peace. As in the case of binding over to keep the peace, there had to be some reason to believe that . .
CitedRegina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
CitedHughes v Holley 1988
Lord Justice Glidewell said that behaviour contra bonos mores meant ‘conduct which has the property of being wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens.’ . .
CitedRegina v Ayu CCA 1959
It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order. . .
CitedGoodlad v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire 1979
Magistrates may not attach particular conditions to a requirement that a defendant be bound over to be of good behaviour. . .
CitedRegina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
CitedRekvenyi v Hungary ECHR 20-May-1999
Hudoc Grand Chamber – No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III
The level of precision required of . .
CitedChorherr v Austria ECHR 25-Aug-1993
The applicant was one of two arrested demonstrating against the Austrian armed forces at a military parade. They had rucksacks on their backs, with slogans on them. The rucksacks were so large that they blocked other spectators’ view of the parade. . .
CitedThe Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
CitedNorris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
See AlsoHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Sep-2011
Grand Chamber – Execution of the judgment . .
CitedHowarth 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165782

Rekvenyi v Hungary: ECHR 20 May 1999

Hudoc Grand Chamber – No violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 11; No violation of Art. 14+10; No violation of Art. 14+11 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-III
The level of precision required of domestic legislation depends to a considerable degree on the content of the instrument in question, the field it is designed to cover and the number and status of those to whom it is addressed: ‘whilst certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice.’
Lawfulness ‘implies qualitative requirements in the domestic law such as foreseeability and, generally, an absence of arbitrariness’.

Citations:

[1999] ECHR 31, 25390/94

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
CitedBeghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165713

Teixeira De Castro v Portugal: ECHR 9 Jun 1998

Mr De Castro had been the target of an unwarranted, unauthorised, unsupervised police operation in which undercover officers incited him to supply drugs. He challenged a conviction for trafficking in heroin, based mainly on statements of two police officers.
Held: The necessary inference from the circumstances was that these officers had ‘exercised an influence such as to incite the commission of the offence’. The court concluded there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under article 6(1). ‘The Court reiterates that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task under the Convention is not to give a ruling as to whether statements of witnesses were properly admitted as evidence, but rather to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. .’

Citations:

25829/94, [1998] 28 EHRR 101, [1998] ECHR 52

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
CitedHolland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedRegina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
CitedRegina v Moore and Another CACD 13-Feb-2013
The appellants said that they had been entrapped into committing the offences of which they stood convicted. Their applications for stay on the ground of abuse of process had been rejected.
Held: The appeal failed.
Rix Lj said: ‘the . .
CitedRegina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
CitedPalmer and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2014
Three defendants appealed against convictions for selling stolen goods, saying that the police had used entrapment. The officers had established a shop at which thieves might expect to sell goods. Each defendant had pleaed guilty after a ruling . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165622

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 protecting the rights of others.
Held: The provision of a system which would allow the refusal of a video certificate permitting distribution, is within an individual nation’s margin of appreciation, and not an infringement of the film distributors right of free speech. ‘Whereas there is little scope under Article 10 paragraph 2 . . for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest . . . a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the contracting states when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals.’
‘ . . the English law of blasphemy does not prohibit the expression, in any form, of views hostile to the Christian religion. Nor can it be said that opinions which are offensive to Christians necessarily fall within its ambit. As the English courts have indicated, it is the manner in which views are advocated rather than the views themselves which the law seeks to control. The extent of insult to religious feelings must be significant as is clear from the use by the courts of the adjectives ‘contemptuous’, ‘reviling’, ‘scurrilous’, ‘ludicrous’ to depict material of a sufficient degree of offensiveness. The high degree of profanation that must be attained constitutes in itself, a safeguard against arbitrariness. It is against this background that the asserted justification under Article 10(2) in the decisions of the national authorities must be considered.’

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1996, Case 19/1995, [1997] 24 EHRR 1, 17419/90, [1996] ECHR 60, [1996] ECHR 60

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

Video Recordings Act 1984, European Convention on Human Rights Art 10.2

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedGoldstein, Rimmington v Regina CACD 28-Nov-2003
Two defendants appealed in respect of alleged offences under common law of causing a public nuisance. One had sent race hatred material, and the other bomb hoaxes, through the post. Both claimed that the offence was so ill defined as to be an . .
CitedInterfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedGreen, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
CitedCore Issues Trust v Transport for London Admn 22-Mar-2013
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision made by TfL not to allow an advertisement on behalf of the Trust to appear on the outside of its buses. It was to read: ‘NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!’. The decision was said to . .
CitedLord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165468

Ravnsborg v Sweden: ECHR 23 Mar 1994

Article 6 did not apply to proceedings where the applicant had been fined for making improper statements in written observations before the Swedish courts. The proceedings were regarded as being outside the ambit of article 6 because they were disciplinary in character. The Court recognised the need for summary procedures.

Judges:

R. Ryssdal, P

Citations:

[1994] ECHR 11, 14220/88, (1994) 18 EHRR 38

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
CitedDodds v Regina CACD 31-May-2002
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165303

Gourlay Or Dickson v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 10 May 2001

Judges:

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Hamilton and Lord Macfadyen and Lord Milligan and Lord Weir

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 28, 2001 JC 203, 2001 GWD 16-595, 2001 SCCR 397, 2001 SLT 674

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Citing:

See AlsoHer Majesty’s Advocate v Annie Mulvey Harkins Gourlay Or Dickson HCJ 10-Sep-1999
. .

Cited by:

CitedCadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 26-Oct-2010
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible
The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164690