Category: Crime

Chamberlain v Lindon: Admn 18 Mar 1998

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his private prosecution of the defendant in destroying a new garden wall. The magistrates had found a lawful excuse in that the defendant said that the wall had been constructed to obstruct his private right of way.
Held: The use of self redress to justify criminal damage by lawful excuse was satisfied if the damage was current at the time of the action. There was no obligation to satisfy alternative possibilities of redress through civil courts.
Sullivan LJ said: ‘Under section 5(2)(b) one is entitled to protect not merely property but a right or interest in property. Since a person entitled to the benefit of a right of way may as a matter of civil law remove any obstruction to the way, it would indeed have been surprising if he did not have the protection of section 5(2)(b) if, in so doing, he necessarily destroyed or damaged the obstruction.’
. . And: ‘It is unnecessary to reach a conclusion as to whether the respondent’s self-help was justified as a matter of civil law on the facts of this case, because the appellant chose to take proceedings in the criminal courts. Rather than suing the respondent for trespass he preferred an information charging the respondent with criminal damage. I have already indicated that, in my view, criminal proceedings were inappropriate. At worst a civil wrong had been committed, either nuisance by the appellant or trespass by the respondent. It should have been for the civil courts to decide which.
In the criminal context the question is not whether the means of protection adopted by the respondent were objectively reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, but whether the respondent believed them to be so, and by virtue of section 5(3) it is immaterial whether his belief was justified, provided it was honestly held.
On the facts found by the justices there can be no doubt that the respondent honestly believed that the means he adopted were reasonable in all of the circumstances of this case.
For these reasons I would answer each of the two questions posed by the Justices in the affirmative and would dismiss this appeal.’

Judges:

Rose LJ, Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 06-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 329

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 5(2)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1992
Mr Lloyd had parked his car in a private car park with five large notices boards located at the entrance to and exit of this private car park positioned at eye-level for car drivers. All those notices warned that unauthorised vehicles would be . .
Cited – Regina v Hunt CACD 1978
The defendant had been charged with setting fire to a guest room in an old people’s home. He claimed that he had done so to draw attention to a defective fire alarm system. He sought to set up a statutory defence under section 5(2) by claiming to . .
Cited – Regina v Hill and Hall CACD 1989
The defendants were separately tried for possession of an article with intent to damage property contrary to section 3. In each case the article in question was a hacksaw blade and it was the prosecution case that each of the applicants intended to . .
Applied – Burton v Winters CA 2-Jun-1993
The defendant’s garage had encroached by one brick’s width on the plaintiff’s land and had been built in 1975. The plaintiff obtained a declaration that that was the position in 1990 but was refused the mandatory injunction which she sought. The . .
Cited – Moffett v Brewer 1848
Greene J said: ‘This summary method of redressing a grievance, by the act of an injured party, should be regarded with great jealousy, and authorised only in cases of particular emergency, requiring a more speedy remedy than can be had by the . .
Cited – Johnson v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 1994
A squatter’s purpose in chiselling the locks off a door and replacing them with his own locks, was not to protect the squatter’s own belongings, but to enable him to gain access to the premises and to bring his bed into the premises. . .
Cited – Lane v Capsey 1891
A building society held a charge over property which enjoyed a right of way over neighbouring land. The right was obstructed by the neighbour building over it. Their request for the removal of the obstruction had been rejected by the court with no . .
Cited – Lagan Navigation Co v Lambeg Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Co Ltd HL 1927
Lord Atkinson stated: ‘It has been well said that the abatement of a nuisance is a remedy which the law does not favour and is not usually advisable, and that its exercise destroys any right of action in respect of the nuisance.’
Concluding, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138450

Castle v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 Mar 1998

Appeal by case stated from conviction of possession of firearms (air rifles) within five years of release from prison. The court was asked as to whether they were ‘lethal’
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ the Justices were entitled to reach the conclusions they did on the evidence before them. They were entitled to do that in the absence of specific evidence as to the effect of firing a pellet from these specific rifles. There was evidence that the rifles were fired and were operating normally as air rifles. It is against that background and, having regard to his employment, that Mr Lowe made the recommendation that they were suitable for use as target rifles and field hunting rifles for shooting small vermin respectively. Upon that evidence, the Justices were entitled to conclude, as they did, that an air rifle which was both capable of killing small vermin, or making an impression on a target could cause injury from which death might result if fired at point blank range at a vulnerable point of the body. Mr Lowe knew that the rifles were designed for that purpose. There was unchallenged evidence that he would sell them for that purpose. In those circumstances, there does not, in my judgment, have to be evidence of the observed effect upon a target or upon an animal to establish that the rifles were lethal within the meaning of the section. ‘

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 309

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968 21(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Moore and Gooderham 1960
The court was asked whether a firearm was ‘lethal’.
Held: Lord Parker CJ stated: ‘I think that the Justices were fully entitled to give the word lethal the sense that the injury must be of a kind which may cause death. That is the ordinary . .
Cited – Grace v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1989
The court was asked whether an air rifle amounted to a ‘lethal’ weapon.
Held: Allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions, Auld J said that: ‘the test applied by the justices as to what constituted a firearm within section 57(1) was . .
Cited – Regina v Hill CACD 1993
The court was asked whether the prosecution had established that the substance involved in the case was the drug mentioned in the charge.
Held: Waterhouse J stated: ‘ . . the prosecution must establish the identity of the drug that is the . .
Cited – Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Vice-Chancellor was asked to consider whether to strike out a statement of claim based upon alleged misfeasance by a police officer in his public office. The allegation against the police officer was that he had deliberately and falsely supplied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138430

Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Foot: Admn 29 Jan 1998

A device which tested for police radar speed check did not intercept a message between persons and therefore was not unlawful. ‘a signal in this context is not a mere electronic impulse but is rather a sign or something of meaning to another person. Mr McGuinness clearly cannot and does not submit that the emission of this beam towards a passing vehicle involves ‘the sending or conveying of any warning or information’ within the subsection.’ Section 19(6) has no application to the acquisition of information merely by beaming energy to, and receiving information back from, inanimate, albeit moving objects. The new regulations had exempted such devices.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown -And- Mr Justice Mance

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 105

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 19(6), The Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus (Receivers) (Exemption) Regulations 1989

Citing:

Cited – Invicta Plastics Limited v Clare QBD 1976
Those advertising and selling devices which were designed to detect the presence of police radar speed devices commit the offence of incitement under section 1(1) of the 1949 Act which required a licence for the use of such apparatus. . .
Cited – Regina v Mildenhall Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Forest Heath District Council; Regina v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates’ Court ex parte Forest Heath District Council CA 16-Apr-1997
The Magistrates appealed against an order of mandamus requiring a case to be stated after rejecting the request by the authority as frivolous. The authority had sought to prevent the emission of noise from land used for a Motocross racing track.
Cited – Paul v Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications 1973
The defendant had a receiver tuned to receive emergency fire brigade messages. He committed an offence under the section. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Waite QBD 17-May-1996
The defendant had a scanner tuned to listen in to the police channel. He committed an offence under the section. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138226

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ullah: Admn 29 Jan 1998

Prosecutor’s appeal against the adjudication acquitting the Respondent of an offence under section 139(1) of the 1988 Act. The information proffered against him alleged that he had with him, without good reason or lawful authority, an article which had a blade or was pointed, namely a knife with a five inch fixed blade contrary to the section.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Mance J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138220

Burns v First Capital Connect: Admn 1 May 2012

The defendant appealed aganst his conviction under the byelaws, regulation 8, for not having handed over his ticket for inspection etc. He had not been requested to do so, but his Oyster card had had insufficient credit for the journey.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘Whatever may have been the appellant’s fate, had he been prosecuted under Byelaws 17(1) or 18(1), which focus on valid tickets, those were not the Byelaws under which he was prosecuted. A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) was, whatever the underlying merits, doomed to fail.’

Judges:

Gross LJ, Supperstone J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railway Byelaws

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Transport

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.460342

Hilal Al-Jedda: SIAC 18 Jul 2014

lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue

Judges:

Flaux J, Ward UTJ, Sir Stewart Eldon

Citations:

[2014] UKSIAC SC – 66 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At QBD – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At ECHR (2) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At CA – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SC – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.536373

Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ): SIAC 7 Feb 2014

Order

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2014] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
At QBD – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .

Cited by:

At SIAC (3) – Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 26-Nov-2010
Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.522155

Hilal Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 26 Nov 2010

Deprivation of Citizenship – Substantive – Dismissed

Judges:

Keith J (Ch), Jordan SIJ

Citations:

[2010] UKSIAC 66/2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At CA (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 29-Mar-2006
The applicant had dual Iraqi and British nationality. He was detained by British Forces in Iraq under suspicion of terrorism, and interned.
Held: His appeal failed. The UN resolution took priority over the European Convention on Human Rights . .
At Admn (1) – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 12-Aug-2005
The claimant was born an Iraqi, but had been granted British Nationality. He was later detained in Iraq suspected of membership of a terrorist group. No charges were brought, and he complained that his article 5 rights were infringed. The defendant . .
At HL – Al-Jedda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence (JUSTICE intervening) HL 12-Dec-2007
The appellant who had dual Iraqi and British nationality complained of his detention by British troops in Iraq. He was not charged with any offence, but was detained on the ground that his internment is necessary for imperative reasons of security . .
At SIAC (1) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 23-May-2008
The appellant had been granted british citizenship. He now appealed against a an order under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that the respondent was satisfied that deprivation was conducive to the . .
At SIAC (2) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 22-Oct-2008
The Court was asked whether or not the procedural protections afforded by Article 6(1) ECHRR as identified by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46 [2008] 1 AC 440 apply to the Appellant’s appeal . .
At ECHR (1) – Al-Jedda v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi and British national complained of his arrest and internment on suspicion of terrorist involvement. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, an Iraqi/British national complained of his detention in Iraq by the defendant without any due process. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC (3) – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deprivation of Citizenship Directions – Oral Ruling ) SIAC 7-Feb-2014
Order . .

Cited by:

See Also – Al-Jedda v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
Grand Chamber – The international measure relied on by the respondent state had to be interpreted in a manner that minimised the extent to which arbitrary detention was sanctioned or required.
The court described its role in settling awards of . .
See Also – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Mar-2012
The appellant had been deprived of his British Citizenship by an order of the respondent under the 1981 Act. That had meant that he was unable to return to the UK. He now appealed against refusal of his challenge to the order. . .
See Also – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Al-Jedda SC 9-Oct-2013
The claimant had obtained British citizenship, but had had it removed by the appellant by an order under the 1981 Act after he came to be suspected of terrorist involvement. He had appealed against the order, eventually succeeding on the basis that . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 7-Apr-2009
The appellant challenged an order made under the 1981 Act revoking his British citizenship, saying that it infringed his article 8 rights to family life. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence CA 8-Jul-2010
Al Jedda, who had both Iraqi and British nationality, sought damages for unlawful imprisonment by reason of his detention by British forces in a military detention centre in Iraq. . .
At SIAC – Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against a decision withdrawing his British citizenship, saying that this would leave him stateless. . .
At SIAC – Hilal Al-Jedda SIAC 18-Jul-2014
lSIAC Deprivation of Citizenship : Preliminary Issue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.461840

McQuade v Chief Constable of Humberside Police: CA 12 Jul 2001

It was not necessary for there to be a common law breach of the peace on private premises, for there to be shown any disturbance to members of the public outside the premises. A head note in the case of McConnell was a mis-interpretation of that case, insofar as it suggested that any such disturbance was necessary.

Judges:

Gibson, Laws LJJ, Nourse

Citations:

Times 03-Sep-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1990
The plaintiff sought damages from the police. She had gone into a store and refused to leave when so requested. The police officer escorted her from the premises. She tried to re-enter the premises, and the officer exercised his common law right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.162935

Director of Public Prosecutions v Hynde: Admn 3 Jul 1997

A butterfly knife is an offensive weapon per se in that it is made for use for causing injury to the person.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 626, [1998] 1 Cr App R 288

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Patterson Admn 19-Oct-2004
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge for possession of offensive weapon. The defendant had a butterfly knife with him when arrested. the respondent went with his father to a shopping precinct at 3 o’clock on the day concerned and that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137571

K P Warne v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Jun 1997

Appeal against conviction for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, in this case a pickaxe handle. The magistrates had found it adapted for causing injury by the removal of the head.
Held: Such an implement ould nt be held to e within the second category of weapon as set out in Williamson. The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Owen J

Citations:

[1997] CLY 1234, [1997] EWHC Admin 508

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Williamson CACD 1977
Geoffrey Lane LJ said: ‘As has been pointed out in numerous cases, that [ie section 1(4) of the Act] provides three categories of weapons. The first category is the weapon which is made for causing injury to the person. The second type of weapon is . .
Cited – Houghton v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester 1986
An off-duty policeman was returning from a fancy dress party in a policeman’s uniform, carrying a truncheon. The issue arose in the course as to whether or not that would constitute an offence.
Held: The words ‘reasonable excuse’ in section . .
Cited – Stephen Chen v Director of Public Prosecutions 4-Mar-1997
Rose LJ said: ‘Whether or not an object is an offensive weapon per se is a question of fact which depends upon the whole of the evidence. It is not a matter which is or should be susceptible to a ruling as a matter of of law.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137453

Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignall: Admn 16 May 1997

The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used under the 1984 Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill And Mr Justice Astill

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 476, [1998] 1 Cr App R 1 DC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990, Data Protection Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Cited – Regina v Brown (Gregory) HL 9-Feb-1996
The issue was whether ‘data’ within the Data Protection Act 1984 was limited to data in computer-readable form.
Held: The offence of the ‘use’ of protected data required something beyond inspection on a computer screen including printout. . .

Cited by:

Not followed – Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison HL 2-Sep-1999
A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137421

Director of Public Prosecutions v Royston Cornish: Admn 22 Jan 1997

The prosecutor appealed by case stated against dismissal of a charge of child cruelty. The defence had successfully argued against the admission of taped interviews, saying that the defendant should have been allowed an appropriate adult.
Held: The magistrates should have allowed representations from the prosecutor first before disallowing the evidence.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 1(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76(2)(b)

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136992

Shropshire County Council (David Walker) v Simon Dudley Limited: Admn 17 Dec 1996

A customer’s description of the goods he required was a trade description for the future supply of those goods by the seller claiming to fulfil that specification. The trading standards officer appealed dismissal of his prosecution of the defendant on four informations alleging an unlawful supply of goods. The defendant had tendered successfully to a specification to supply a fire engine. Modifications of the specification were agreed, but the engine supplied matched neither specification.
Held: The supplier could be taken to have accepted a duty to supply the goods as described, and the representation as to his ability to make the supply continued at the time of supply.

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

Times 03-Jan-1997, [1996] EWHC Admin 376

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)(b) 4(3)

Citing:

Cited – Cavendish Woodhouse Ltd v Wright 8-Mar-1985
If a salesman in a shop makes representations to say that he could supply goods identical to a sort described, the description becomes attached to the goods delivered for the purposes of the Act, and if it is false, it is a false description. The . .
Cited – Beckett v Cohen QBD 1972
. .
Cited – British Airways Board v Taylor HL 1976
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘My Lords, the distinction in law between a promise as to future action, which may be broken or kept, and a statement as to existing fact, which may be true or false, is clear enough. There may be inherent in a promise an . .
Cited – Regina v Ford Motor Company Limited QBD 1974
The alleged false trade description was that a car supplied to a garage was ‘new’, as ordered from Fords.
Held: (Appeal allowed on other grounds) The effect of the order was that Parkway was seeking the supply from Fords of a ‘new vehicle’. . .
Cited – Louis C Edwards (Manchester) Limited v Charles Miller CA 1981
A local County Council asked for tenders for meat. It specified the maximum depth of subcutaneous fat of pork. A school cook ordered pork without making any reference to the depth of the fat. A quantity of pork was thereafter delivered. The pork did . .
Cited – Denard v Smith and Dixons QBD 1991
A Christmas Dixons were offering, both in their brochures and by a placard in the store, a computer, joystick and four software packages, including Nintendo games, all for andpound;149.95. A Mrs Grover decided to buy this from Dixons, her son being . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer, Contract

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136924

Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe: Admn 18 Dec 1996

The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4).
Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant’s means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)

Crime, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928

Swanston v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 1996

There was no necessary requirement for evidence from a victim perceiving the use insulting words or behaviour so as to actually feel threatened.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1997, (1996) 161 JP 203, [1996] EWHC Admin 314

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 4(1)

Cited by:

Applied – I v Director of Public Prosecutions etc HL 8-Mar-2001
A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136862

Hibberd v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Nov 1996

The defendant trespasser set out to stop the clearance of land for the construction of a new by-pass. He gave evidence that one or more of the tree-fellers was using a chainsaw but not wearing gloves and suggested that that raised the real possibility that he was committing an offence contrary to the 1992 Regulations 1992 in not using equipment provided for him by his employers. He said that his actions ad been intended to stop the commission of that offence.
Held: The court declined to investigate whether any such offence was or was not made out. Even if it had been it could not affect the lawful nature of the activity which the defendant had disrupted, namely the clearance of the site. That was lawful in the sense that it was properly authorised. The ‘activity’ of the occupants could not be defined simply to extend to the actions of the particular chainsaw operator(s) spotted.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992

Cited by:

Cited – Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 5-Feb-2014
The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136828

Lucy and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Nov 1996

The defendants had sought to demonstrate against the use of a quarry. On the day, the quarry had been announced to be closed. They were charged with disrupting activities at the site and aggravated trespass.
Held: Even if the demonstrators had anticipated that no quarrying activities would be interrupted, it was clear that as trespassers on property they came to know that their activities were having this effect and still did not leave. Appeal denied.

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68(1) 69

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136807

Regina v Jobling: CACD 1981

The court considered an appeal against a conviction for possession of a prohibited automatic weapon.
Held: It was insufficient to ask whether the weapon was originally designed to fire continuously; the question was whether it remained so.

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

[1981] Crim LR 625

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Disapproved – Regina v Clarke CACD 1985
A sub-machine gun was found. It was incomplete, without trigger, pivot pin or magazine, but had been designed for fully-automatic fire only. It could be operated by use of a piece of string tied across the ‘sear’ (the catch keeping the hammer at . .
Cited – Bewley v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a firearm. The crown had been able to make it discharge a pellet only by taking elaborate preparatory steps. ‘There being no dispute but that the starting pistol was a lethal-barrelled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.462423

In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the 1988 Act. At issue there was whether the accused had used a computer terminal to gain unauthorised access to the computerised fund transfer services of a bank in order to make fraudulent transfers of funds from accounts of clients of the bank to accounts which he controlled. Each request for a transfer was processed automatically and a record of the transaction was copied to the computer’s historical records. The printout of screen displays of these records was admissible to prove the transfers of funds they recorded. Lord Hoffman stated: ‘they do not assert that such transfers took place. They recorded the transfers . . . The evidential status of the printouts is no different from that of a photocopy of forged cheques.’
Lord Hoffmann discussed the nature of extradition proceedings: ‘Finally, I think that extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings. They are of course criminal proceedings of a very special kind, but criminal proceedings nonetheless.
Both case law and the terms of the Extradition Act 1989 point to extradition proceedings being categorised as criminal. First, the cases. In Amand v. Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government [1943] A.C. 147 this House approved the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Alice Woodhall (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 832 that the refusal of an application for habeas corpus by a person committed to prison with a view to extradition was a decision in a ‘criminal cause or matter.’ It would seem to me to follow a fortiori that the extradition proceedings themselves are criminal proceedings and in Amand’s case Viscount Simon L.C. said, at p 156, that the cases demonstrated that ‘the matter in respect of which the accused is in custody may be ‘criminal’ although he is not charged with a breach of our own criminal law.’
Secondly, the Extradition Act 1989. Section 9(2) and paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 require that extradition proceedings should be conducted ‘as nearly as may be’ as if they were committal proceedings before magistrates. Committal proceedings are of course criminal proceedings and these provisions would make little sense if the metropolitan magistrate could not apply the normal rules of criminal evidence and procedure. The suggestion of counsel in Ex parte Francis that extradition proceedings were ‘sui generis’ would only make matters worse, because it would throw doubt upon whether the magistrate could apply the rules of civil evidence and procedure either.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[1997] Crim LR 891, [1997] 3 All ER 289, [1997] 3 WLR 117, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 22, [1997] UKHL 27, [1997] AC 741

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69, Extradition Act 1989, Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Levin QBD 11-Mar-1996
Extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings so as to allow the admission of computer printout under criminal procedures. . .
Explained – Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Francis QBD 12-Apr-1995
Justices may not hear evidence from accomplices in extradition proceedings. Also foreign intercept evidence may be used in support of extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings as such, but may be sui generis. . .
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited – Regina v King’s Lynn Justices, Ex parte Holland QBD 1993
Section 78 is properly applied in committal proceedings. Examining justices could exclude the evidence from their consideration only if satisfied that its admission at the trial would be so obviously unfair to the proceedings that no judge properly . .

Cited by:

Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – McKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
Cited – Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland CA 15-Jul-1997
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135017

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Allen and Another: Admn 3 Feb 2012

The defendant had been convicted on his plea of guilty to offences under section 83(1). As a postman he had diverted postal packets given to him for delivery. The judge later became concerned at the correctness of the plea which required the defendant to be a person ‘engaged in the business of a postal operator’ and set aside the conviction.
Held: Examining the legislative history and context the offence was clearly one to be faced by an individual. The appeal succeeded, and the convictions were restored.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 554 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Postal Services Act 2000 83(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459546

Cornelius, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for fraud under the 2006 Act, saying that the judge had wrongly failed to give a Ghosh direction. As a solicitor he had organised a scheme for buying properties, obtaining finance by the nomination of third parties as fronts. He said that though he was acting in breach of different professional protocols, the sums were fully secured and had been repaid without additional risk to the lender, and he had not acted dishonestly.
Held: A special court was held to consider whether a Ghosh direction was appropriate.

Judges:

Hughes P QBD

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Midland Bank Plc v Cox McQueen (A Firm) CA 26-Jan-1999
Solicitors were instructed by the bank to obtain the signature of a client and of his wife to a motgage. The deed was signed by the husband and a woman pretending to be the wife.
Held: The court said that it was asked whether the bank intended . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg and Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc v Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc v Hopkin John and Co CA 21-May-1998
The defendant solicitors had each acted for banks in completing charges over property. They had given the standard agreed form of undertaking to secure a good and marketable title, and the banks now alleged that they were in breach because . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.452139

HM Advocate, Re 4th Criminal Court of Lisbon, A Porugese Judicial Authority: HCJ 9 Dec 2011

The Lord Advocate appealed against dismissal of extradition proceedings against the two defendants.

Citations:

[2011] ScotHC HCJAC – 121, [2011] HCJAC 121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.450154

The Freedom and Justice Party and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another: Admn 5 Aug 2016

The court was asked whether members of special missions visiting the United Kingdom with the approval of the First Defendant (‘the FCO’) enjoy personal inviolability and/or immunity from criminal process pursuant to a rule of customary international law to which effect is given by the common law.

Judges:

Lloyd Jones LJ, Jay J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, International

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568008

Regina v McEvilly: CACD 2008

The appellant had pleaded guilty to count 3, unlawful wounding, contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act. The trial went ahead on counts 1 and 2, attempted murder and wounding with intent; all three counts in the alternative. After a majority direction the jury, asked to deliver its verdict, was unable to agree on attempted murder, count 1 and was asked if it had agreed in relation to count 2, S18. It returned an unanimous guilty verdict. It confirmed that more time would assist in relation to count 1, and in due course returned an unanimous guilty verdict on it. The appellant submitted that the procedural error in taking the verdict on count 2 before reaching finality in relation to count 1 rendered the conviction on count 1 unsafe.
Held: The court, whilst not agreeing that the conviction on count 1 was unsafe found there had been a procedural error: ‘Where there are two charges in the alternative on the indictment arising from the same facts, and with one more serious than the other, the judge should not take a verdict on the less serious count until finality has been reached on the more serious charge. Such finality may take the form of a not guilty verdict, or a decision to discharge the jury on that count because there is no realistic prospect of agreement on a verdict. If this course is not followed, then there is a serious risk of the very situation arising which arose here, with charges in the alternative leading to a multiplicity of convictions. That as this court pointed out in the case of R v Harris [1969] 1 WLR 745 cannot be right. It is not right.’

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 1162, [2008] Crim LR 968

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Pollett and Others v Regina CACD 26-Mar-2013
Parties had been convicted of various offences associated with the conduct of a large Ponzi investment fraud scheme, and now appealed against sentence and or conviction.
Held: In P’s case, the charges had been laid as alternatives, and having . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510155

Pashmfouroush and Another, Regina v: CACD 1 Sep 2006

Statements in an out of court witness statement were only put to the witness in cross-examination and the court was now asked whether the prosecution was entitled to re-examine on parts of the document not put to the witness in cross-examination.
Held: ‘ In our judgment the Recorder did err in concluding that the situation fell within section 120(3). It does not appear that this witness statement had been used by the witness to refresh her memory while giving evidence. On the contrary, it was put to her on the basis that there was an inconsistency between her oral evidence and the witness statement, which did not contain matters she had stated in her oral evidence. As an inconsistent statement the matter would have been properly dealt with under section 119 of the 2003 Act . . Even if it could be said that the document had been used by the witness to refresh her memory while giving evidence, it still does not seem to us that the matter falls within section 120(3) so as to render the witness statement as a whole admissible in evidence. Section 120(3) does not provide for the circumstances in which a documentary statement may be received in evidence, but provides for the evidential status of a document where it is received in evidence. Whether it should be received in evidence in the first place is subject to the former common law rules.’

Judges:

Richards LJ, Collins, Jack JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2330

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 120(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chinn, Regina v CACD 15-Mar-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for a serious assault. He argued that the prosecution should not have been allowed to introduce parts of a witness’ statement where the witness could not remember the underlying events directly.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.406583

John M, Regina v: CACD 14 Nov 2003

The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the defendant must be able (a) to understand the questions he is asked in the witness box, (b) to apply his mind to answering them, and (c) to convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to give. It is not necessary that his answers should be plausible or believable or reliable… Nor is it necessary that the defendant should be able to remember all or any of the matters which give rise to the charge against him…’
Held: The judge’s direction ws approved. The court considered the authorities on the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. The court summarised the questions to be asked: ‘Does the defendant understand the charges that have been made against him? Is he able to decide whether to plead guilty or not? Is he able to exercise his right to challenge the jurors? Is he able intelligently to convey to his lawyers the case which he wishes them to advance on his behalf, and the matters which he wishes to put forward in his defence? Is he able to follow the proceedings when they come to court? And is he able, if he wishes, to give evidence on his own behalf? ‘

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans, J Cooke J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3452, [2004] MHLR 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Rex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
Cited – Regina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
Cited – Regina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
Cited – Regina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Moyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
Cited – Taitt v The State PC 8-Nov-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law . .
Cited – Orr, Regina v CACD 7-Jul-2016
The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279859

Regina v F: CACD 16 Feb 2007

The defendant was charged with offences for having been in possession of a document or record containing information of a kind ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’. It was thought he was associated with a terrorist plan to attack the government of Libya. The defendant argued that the 2000 Act was not intended to protect foreign non-democratic governments.
Held: ‘There is no exemption from criminal liability for terrorist activities which are motivated or said to be morally justified by the alleged nobility of the terrorist cause. ‘ The defendant’s argument that he had a reasonable execuse under the Act in that they ‘originated as part of an effort to change an illegal or undemocratic regime’. That argument was circular in that ‘that a reasonable excuse for conduct which constituted a crime may be found in the commission of the very crime prohibited by the statute. If correct, this would introduce an impossible incoherence into the statutory provisions. And for such an excuse to be ‘reasonable’, the carefully constructed definition of terrorism in s 1 of the Act would become inoperative.’
‘What is striking about the language of section 1, read as a whole, is its breadth. It does not specify that the ambit of its protection is limited to countries abroad with governments of any particular type or possessed of what we, with our fortunate traditions, would regard as the desirable characteristics of representative government. There is no list or Schedule or statutory instrument which identifies the countries whose governments are included in section 1(4)(d) or excluded from the application of the 2000 Act. Finally, the legislation does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Such a concept is foreign to the 2000 Act. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators.
Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life or creating a serious risk to the health or safety to the public in that country, or involving (not producing) serious personal violence or damage to property, or designed seriously to interfere with an electronic system, ‘is terrorism’ . .’

Judges:

President QBD, Irwin J, Forbes J

Citations:

[2007] 3 WLR 164, [2007] 2 All ER 193, [2007] QB 960, [2007] EWCA Crim 243

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 29, Terrorism Act 2000 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Salomon v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 1966
Diplock LJ said: ‘The Convention is one of those public acts of state of Her Majesty’s Government of which Her Majesty’s judges must take judicial notice if it be relevant to the determination of a case before them, if necessary informing themselves . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – The United Communist Party of Turkey And Others v Turkey ECHR 30-Jan-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 11; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 18; Not . .
Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 21-Feb-2007
The claimant had lost his company pension and complained that the respondent had refused to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid.
Held: The court should not rely on . .
Cited – Gul, Regina v SC 23-Oct-2013
Mr Gul appealed against a dismissal of his appeal against his conviction for dissemination of terrorist publications contrary to section 2 of the 2006 Act. The Court was now asked as to the meaning of ‘terrorism’ in section 1 of the Terrorism Act . .
Cited – Dart and Others v Regina CACD 31-Oct-2014
The defendants had been convicted on guilty pleas of offences under the 2006 Act. Dart had been sentenced to a six year term and a five year extended sentence. Other received shorter and longer sentences as appropriate. They now applied for leave to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248849