As to the case of Kwan Ping Bong, Moses LJ said: ‘Read literally, Lord Diplock’s dicta might be understood to be saying that an inference was only to be regarded as compelling if all juries, assumed to be composed of those who are reasonable, would be bound to draw such an inference. In short, an inference could only be drawn if no one would dissent from it.
We reject that as an approach to be taken by the judge at the close of the prosecution case, even where the evidence is only circumstantial. The correct approach is to ask whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, would be entitled to draw an adverse inference. To draw an adverse inference from a combination of factual circumstances necessarily does involve the rejection of all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence. But that is not the same as saying that anyone considering those circumstances would be bound to reach the same conclusion. That is not an appropriate test for a judge to apply on the submission of no case. The correct test is the conventional test of what a reasonable jury would be entitled to conclude.’

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2964

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kwan Ping Bong and Kong Ching v The Queen PC 16-Nov-1978
(Hong Kong) In reaching its conclusions it is open to the court to draw inferences from primary facts which it finds established by evidence. A court may not, however, infer the existence of some fact which constitutes an essential element of the . .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .

Cited by:

Cited – X Ltd, Regina v CACD 23-May-2013
The prosecutor appealed after the judge at the crown court had found no case to answer on a prosecution of the company under the 2008 Regulations. The company had sold a home security system to an elderly and vulnerable man. His family found that he . .
Approved – Goring v Regina CACD 13-Jan-2011
The defendant appealed against his convictions for murder and possession of an offensive weapon, saying that the judge had wrongly rejected his submission that there was no case to answer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.510094

The defendant had been charged under s 8(1) and s 25(1) of the 1968 Act with robbery and going equipped for stealing. A robbery had been committed and the accused were later found in possession of articles fit for use in a robbery.
Held: Browne J said: ‘In our view, to establish an offence under Section 25 (1) the prosecution must prove that the Defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat. But it is not necessary to prove that he intended it to be used in the course of or in connection with any specific burglary, theft or cheat; it is enough to prove a general intention to use it for some burglary, theft or cheat; we think that this view is supported by the use of the word ‘any’ in Section 25 (1). Nor, in our view, is it necessary to provide that the defendant intended to use it himself; it will be enough to prove that he had it with him with the intention that it should be used by someone else.’

Judges:

Browne J

Citations:

60 Cr App R 7, [1974] 1 WLR 1391

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.448380

The defendants appealed against their convictions for perjury, saying that the judge had failed to remind the jury of the need for the falsity of the statement at issue to be corroborated by a second independent witness.
Held: The falsity of the statements had been established by evidence from three independent an unconnected witnesses. Though there had indeed been a misdirection, the jury would have convicted had it been given, and the conviction stood.

Citations:

[1994] 99 CAR 38, [1993] Crim LR 613

Statutes:

Perjury Act 1911 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Cooper CACD 5-May-2010
The defendant appealed his conviction for perjury. On being accused of using a mobile phone when driving, he claimed to have been using a hands free system. Evidence later showed that his kit had been fitted only after the date of the alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.409989

Plea that as a scotsman, the defendant was not liable for conviction as a traitor

Citations:

[1704] EngR 43, (1704) Holt KB 693, (1704) 90 ER 1283

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.392138

Citations:

[1975] ScotHC HCJ – 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.279194

The defendant was accused of riot.
Held: Involvement in a riot as a secondary party could be established by showing verbal encouragement of those physically involved at the time.

Citations:

(1767) 4 Burr 2073, 98 ER 81

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272774

For possession of an indecent image of a child to be proved, it was necessary to establish some knowledge of its existence. Images stored without the defendant’s knowledge by browser software in a hidden cache, of which he was also unaware, were not such, and a conviction was quashed. The situation was akin to a person having a hold-all in which, unknown to him, was a gun. Knowledge of the bag was enough, but ignorance of the bag itself made it no crime. An image formed by sellotaping two parts of other images together was not a pseudo-photograph. The court was bound by Bowden: ‘it seems to me problematic enough to construe s.1(1)(a) (an offence to which no defence whatever is available) as encompassing the intentional making of copies. To construe it as creating an absolute offence in the sense contended for by the DPP, i.e. to encompass also the unintentional making of copies, in my judgment would go altogether too far. It would, moreover, as Miss Malcolm points out, represent a striking oddity in our criminal law: a situation where the self-same set of facts involves the commission of two quite distinct offences, possession under s.160 and ‘making’ under s.1(1)(a), no additional ingredient being required for proof of the more serious offence. In short, it is my conclusion that whilst ‘making’ includes intentional copying (Bowden), it does not include unintentional copying.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Blofeld

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2000, Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1427, [2000] EWHC Admin 302, [2002] 2 Cr App R 248

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Protection of Children Act 1978 7(7), Criminal Justice Act 1988 160

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Fellows, Arnold CACD 27-Sep-1996
Computer based digital images are ‘copies of a photograph’ sufficient for the Act, and so possession of digital entities capable of being transformed into images were such photographs. Making a file available for download, was sufficient to amount . .
Cited – Tuck and Sons v Priester 1887
A person should not be penalised except under a clear law: ‘If there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case, we must adopt that construction. If there are two reasonable constructions we must give the more . .
Cited – Regina v Bowden CACD 10-Nov-1999
The defendant downloaded indecent images of children onto his computer, and printed them out. He was convicted of making new images by virtue of creating copies on his disc by downloading, by displaying them on his screen, and by printing them out. . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Regina v Hussain 1972
H was charged with the possession of firearms without a certificate.
Held: This was an absolute offence. Hussain was guilty because he knew he had the relevant article even though he did not know it was a firearm. . .
Cited – Buswell, Regina v CACD 1972
The defendant was accused of possession of drugs. The drugs in question had been medically prescribed by the defendant’s doctor. After he had taken them home he genuinely thought that they had been accidentally destroyed by his mother when washing . .
Cited – Regina v Steele 1993
The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm without a certificate.
Held: The offence was absolute. The defendant was guilty because he knew he had a holdall with contents even though he did not know what those contents . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Jayson CACD 7-Mar-2002
The defendants were convicted of making indecent quasi-photographs of children under the Act. They had received e-mails, and opened the images in attachments to those e-mails. They appealed saying that the opening of the attachment was not . .
Cited – Regina v Collier CACD 11-Jun-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of indecent pseudo-photographs of children. He said that he had not seen the image, and that though he had reason to know the images were indecent, he had no reason to know that they were of . .
Cited – Porter, Regina v CACD 16-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction of possession of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. The images had been deleted, and were irrecoverable, but they had originally been viewed through a program which created a smaller . .
Cited – Clifford v The Chief Constable of The Hertfordshire Constabulary QBD 1-Apr-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office bought by the claimant who was charged with child pornography offences in July 2004. The prosecution had eventually offered no evidence. He said that it should have been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77936

Citations:

[2009] ScotHC HCJAC – 61

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.361494

The defendant faced charges of having breached a control order. He said that it was invalid since it appeared to delegate to a police officer the setting of the precise terms of his reporting obligations, saying that this was a function reserved to the Secretary of State.
Held: The order was valid. The order was one made by the Home Secretary that the defendant should report at such times as the contact officer should specify. Such an order could be challenged only in the High Court. The court reconstituted itself as a divisional court to rule that the order was valid.

Judges:

Lord Philips of Wohr Matravers LCJ, Burton J, Stanley Burton J

Citations:

Times 18-May-2007

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252560

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 plead, which they found in the affirmative, and the prisoner, by a sign, pleaded Not guilty The Judge then ordered the jury to be sworn to try whether the prisoner was ‘now sane or not’; and on this question, his Lordship directed the jury to consider whether the prisoner had sufficieut intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings, so as to make a proper defence, to challenge any juror he might wish to object to, and to comprehend the details of the evldence, and that if they thought he had not, they should find him not of sane mind. The jury did so, and the Judge ordered the prisoner to be detained.
The court stated the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. Alderson B said: ‘There are three points to be enquired into:- first, whether the prisoner is mute of malice or not; secondly, whether he can plead to the indictment or not; thirdly, whether he is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial so as to make a proper defence – to know that he might challenge any of you [the jury] to whom he may object – and to comprehend the details of the evidence, which in a case of this nature must constitute a minute investigation.”

Judges:

Alderson B

Citations:

[1836] 7 C and P 303, [1836] EngR 540, (1836) 7 Car and P 303, (1836) 173 ER 135

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

Mentioned – Rex v Dyson 1831
Parke J empanelled a jury to decide whether the defendant was fit to plead. In directing the jury the judge referred to the following passage in Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, vol I, p 34: ‘If a man in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P Admn 27-Apr-2007
The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by . .
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 . .
Confirmed – 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 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: . .
Explained – 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 . .
Cited – Brown v The Queen PC 9-Feb-2016
Court of Appeal of Jamaica – Appeal against conviction for murder – challenge as to capacity to plead.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed, but the appeal against sentence succeeded. . .
Cited – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
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

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.251549

The defendant was accused of rape. The jury sought guidance from the judge on the question of whether the complainant’s alcohol consumption may have vitiated her consent to sexual intercourse.
Held: ‘there is no special rule applicable to drink and rape. If the issue be, as here, did the woman consent? the critical question is not how she came to take the drink, but whether she understood her situation and was capable of making up her mind. In Howard [1965] 50 CAR 56 the Court of Criminal Appeal had to consider the case of a girl under 16. Lord Parker CJ said: ‘in the case of a girl under 16 the prosecution . . must prove either that she physically resisted, or, if she did not, that her understanding and knowledge was such that she was not in a position to decide whether to consent or resist ‘. In our view these words are of general application when ever there is present some factor, be it permanent or transient, suggesting the absence of such understanding or knowledge. None of this was explained to the jury. Their attention was focussed by the judge upon how she came to take drink, not upon the state of her understanding and her capacity to exercise judgment in the circumstances.’

Citations:

[1976] 62 CAR 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gallagher, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that other acquittals were inconsistent.
Held: They were not. Leave refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250546

The court considered disparities between sentencing of different defendants in the same case: ‘If there be honour among thieves and armed robbers, let him who has been properly and severely sentenced rejoice in the good fortune of his companion who has received a lenient sentence. Let him not complain that he himself has received a proper sentence.’

Judges:

Griffiths LJ

Citations:

(1981) 3 Cr App R(S) 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250036

The defendant having been convicted of murder now wished to bring evidence of diminished responsibility to support an appeal for a substituted finding of manslaughter.
Held: The evidence should have been brought at the trial, and could not now be advanced.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 3187

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Neaven CACD 15-May-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. Unknown to himself and his advisors he suffered schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
Held: The court upheld the paramount and fundamental importance of the principles in favour of one . .

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

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247437

The defendants had believed a child to be subject to possession by spirits and assaulted her, they said, to drive out the evil spirits.
Held: Such a delusion was not a defence. The incident was truly shocking, but not the absolute worst, and the sentence was reduced from the statutory maximum.

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Mar-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240307

The defendant appealed against his conviction for affray. With a co-accused he had asked a motorist in an aggressive manner to drive them to a particular destination and threatened to take the car if he did not do so. Under s3(3) a threat on a charge of affray cannot be made by the use of words alone. At trial Crown counsel argued that in addition to what was said there was conduct which created an aura of menace.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The evidence was devoid of anything that went beyond the use of words alone.

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 581

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237688

The defendant was convicted of affray where he and his Alsatian type dog were pursued by two police officers and cornered in the driveway of a house and he repeated ‘go on, go on’ to the dog who ran forward and bit the police officers.
Held: The appeal failed.

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 579

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237687

An estate agent opening his office on a Sunday was accused of an offence under the Act.
Held: The Act provided that ‘no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other person whatsoever’ should work on a Sunday. However the business of an estate agent was not to be considered eiusdem generis with the other terms.

Citations:

[1953] 2 All ER 559, [1953] 1 WLR 974

Statutes:

Sunday Observance Act 1677

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commercial, Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200606

The court has a power at common law to defer part of its sentencing process.

Citations:

[1974] 3 All ER 811

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Jones (Timothy) CACD 23-May-2003
The court had delayed part of the sentencing procedure to fix a compensation order. However if it did so, it should state clearly the reasons for the postponement, and what sentence was to be considered at the adjourned hearing. In this case a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183269

Citations:

[1992] Crim LR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sonni Lee Reid and Others CACD 31-Jul-2001
The six defendants had been convicted of murder. They had been involved in a mugging where both victims had been assaulted, and thrown from a bridge into the river. Only one survived. They applied a second time for leave to appeal against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183469

The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her children. The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm. The jury convicted her of murder.
Held: The House considered what state of mind, apart from the case where a defendant acts with the purpose of killing or causing serious injury, may be sufficient to constitute the necessary intention for murder. The House differed in their reasons for upholding the conviction. One adopted the ‘highly probable’ test; another thought a test of probability was sufficient; and a third thought it was sufficient if the defendant realised there was ‘a serious risk.’

Citations:

[1974] 2 All ER 41 HL(E), [1974] 2 WLR 607, [1975] AC 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .
Cited – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Narrowed – Regina v Moloney HL 21-Mar-1984
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted.
Lord Bridge of Harwich discussed the case of Hyam: ‘But looking on their facts at the decided cases . .
Cited – Regina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183163

Appeal from conviction of murder.

Judges:

Lord Justice Fulford VP

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Crim 1661

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.656659

If two men attack another without any intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and during the course of the attack one man forms an intention to kill the victim, and strikes the fatal blow with that intention, he may be convicted of murder while the other participant in the plan may be convicted of manslaughter
Lord Parker CJ approved a direction that ‘anybody who is a party to an attack which results in an unlawful killing which results in death is a party to the killing’.

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1964) 48 Cr App R 6, [1963] 3 All ER 602

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.560304

Lord Lane CJ referred to the use of a pick axe handle in a burglary, ‘Foreseeability that the pick axe handle might be used as a weapon of violence was practically indistinguishable from tacit agreement that the weapon should be used for that purpose.’ However: ‘The suggestion that a mere foresight of the real or definite possibility of violence being used is sufficient to constitute the mental element of murder is prima facie, academically speaking at least, not sufficient.’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1990] Crim LR 119

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.560307

Lord Lane CJ said: ‘the court should not be astute to find that a theft has taken place where it would be straining the language so to hold, or where the ordinary person would not regard the defendant’s acts, though possibly morally reprehensible, as theft.’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 578, [1981] 2 All ER 430, [1981] Crim LR 259, (1981) 72 Cr App R 359, (1981) 145 JP 313

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.556205

An accused person who is defending his or her home need not retreat from a threat even if retreat is a reasonably available way to make effectual defence against a threatened assault.

Citations:

(1924) 18 Cr App Rep 160

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.556206

moynes_cooper1956

A workman received a paypacket containing andpound;7 more than was due to him but did not become aware of the overpayment till he opened the envelope some time later. He then kept the andpound;7.
Held: Where the accused received property innocently but later decided to fraudulently appropriate it, this was held not to be larceny. There was no animus furandi at the moment of taking.

Citations:

[1956] 1 QB 439

Statutes:

Larceny Act 1916 1(2)(i)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Gilks CACD 27-Jun-1972
The appellant had placed a bet at a betting shop on a certain horse. A horse with a similar name won, but by mistake the shop paid out on the bet. The appellant knew of the mistake, but refused to return the winnings. He now appealed against his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.539759

Citations:

[1949] 113 JP 294

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Mentioned – Humberside Police v McQuade CA 12-Jul-2001
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.551077

The court considered the evidence required as to the mind of the victim of a fraud. Humphrys J said: ‘ It is, we think, undoubtedly good law that the question of the inducement acting upon the mind of the person who may be described as the prosecutor is not a matter which can only be proved by the direct evidence of the witness. It can be, and very often is, proved by the witness being asked some question which brings the answer: ‘I believed that statement and that is why I parted with my money’; but it is not necessary that there should be that question and answer if the facts are such that it is patent that there was only one reason which anybody could suggest for the person alleged to have been defrauded parting with his money, and that is the false pretence, if it was a false pretence.’

Judges:

Humphrys J

Citations:

(1945) 30 Cr App R 132

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Laverty CACD 1970
Lord Parker CJ said at that the Court should be reluctant to extend the principle in Sullivan further than was necessary. The Crown must always prove its case and one element which will always be required to be proved in these cases is the effect of . .
Cited – Regina v Lambie HL 25-Jun-1981
The defendant had been requested by her credit card company to return her credit card and not to use it. She used it again before returning it. She was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception from the store, but her appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.471155

A servant kills a feme covert, who is his mistress ; this is petty treason within the statute of the 28 E. 3, ch. 2, which says, if a servant kills his master. They are one person, and therefore he is servant to her.
Clergy is denied in the case of burning of dwelling-houses, by the equity of the statute of 23 H. 8, ch. 1, and in the case of provisors upon the statute of 27 E. 3, ch. 1. For these are statutes for the publick good, and therefore shall be taken by equity.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 223, (1220-1623) Jenk 101, (1220) 145 ER 72 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.461135

The defendant faced trial on offences of conspiracy to commit forgery and other related offences. It was alleged that he had made admissions to a police officer in a related case but involving a different defendant. The jury had acquitted the defendant in circumstances which strongly suggested that the police officer had been lying because, in that case too, he had alleged that there had been a confession in interview. The question posed was whether the police officer could be cross-questioned about that earlier acquittal. The judge held that he could not.
Held: He had been wrong to reach that conclusion.

Citations:

[1987] 84 Crim App R 286

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.441412

The causing or inciting required as part of an offence under section 8(1) must be intentional, ie. deliberate; recklessness or less will not do.

Judges:

Hughes LJ

Citations:

[2008] QB 43

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 8(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Grout CACD 1-Mar-2011
The defendant appealed against conviction of intentionally causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.
Held: The conviction was quashed. The evidence did not establish one of the essential elements for a conviction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.430355

The defendant had killed a publican, for whom he had worked and who was a friend. The defence of diminished responsibility was rejected by the jury and he was convicted of murder. On appeal there was no complaint about the terms of the summing up, but it was argued that the conviction was unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court noted that the views of the doctors had been based on statements given to them by the defendant alone and so were not entirely independent. The jury had evidence about the circumstances surrounding the killing and the defendant’s actions afterwards which explained its verdict.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1855

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Khan CACD 27-Jul-2009
On his trial for murder the defendant produced unchallenged expert evidence that at the time of the offence, his mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired by his mental illness. He said that in these circumstances the charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.372331

Two men went out by night with carts to steal apples. They were detected by the landowner’s watchman. One of the thieves attacked him with a bludgeon which he was carrying and caused the man severe injury. The second thief was tried for assault and wounding with intent to murder.
Held: Garrow B ruled: ‘To make the prisoner a principal, the Jury must be satisfied that, when he and his companion went out with a common illegal purpose of committing the felony of stealing apples, they also entertained the common guilty purpose of resisting to death, or with extreme violence, any persons who might endeavour to apprehend them; but if they had only the common purpose of stealing apples, and the violence of the prisoner’s companion was merely the result of the situation in which he found himself, and proceeded from the impulse of the moment, without any previous concert, the prisoner will be entitled to an acquittal.’

Judges:

Garrow B

Citations:

[1831] EngR 502, (1831) 4 Car and P 565, (1831) 172 ER 827 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.320380

More than nine men, of whom seven were armed with guns, being out at night in pursuit of game, were met, as they passed through a field, from one wood to another, by a party of gamekeepers, without fire-arms, but who at once assaulted them with sticks , and one of them with a dangerous weapon, a flail, likely to inflict deadly injury, with which he struck one of the poachers, upon which another of them fired and killed him The grand jury were directed to throw out bllls for murder agamst two of the men, one of whom was supposed to have fired the fatal shot, and the whole nine were indicted for manslaughter. There was evidence that they all stood in a row and cried ‘Shoot”Held, that, whether or not the man who fired the shot could be identified, none of the prisoners would be guilty, unless parties to the act of firing, and that though their being in a row, and crying out ‘Shoot’ was evidence that they were parties to the act, it was only evidence, and its effect would depend upon how far all the circumstances showed that the firing was in pursuance of a common design to shoot, or only in consequence of a particular personal encounter.
Held, also, that an approver having given evidence that one of the prisoners fired the shot, a policeman might be asked whether another of them, who had given information, had not stated that it was a different man who fired.

Judges:

ByleS j

Citations:

[1862] EngR 172, (1862) 3 F and F 483, (1862) 176 ER 217

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.286338

Citations:

[1863] EngR 68, (1863) Le and Ca 330, (1863) 169 ER 1417

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.282723

When two or more, one of whom has received the provocation of a blow, are charged with murder, and one of them has received a provocation (as a blow) which would reduce homicide to manslaughter, and it cannot be proved which of them inflicted the fatal blow, neither of them can be convicted of murder, without proof of a common design to inflict the homicidal act, nor of manslaughter, without proof of a common design to inflict unlawful violence. One of two men, being struck by a third, the other incited him to strike in return ; and, after the lapse of several minutes – the assailant having gone away – they both pursued him with that purpose, and it appeared that, without any previous fighting, he was knocked down, and that then one or other of them (it could not be proved which) kicked him in the eye with a heavy iron-clad boot, causing his death Held, that neither of them was guilty of murder, there being no evidence of a common design to kill, or to inflict murderous or felonious violence, but that both were guilty of manslaughter.
Channell B said that: ‘on a charge of murder there must be evidence not only of a common design to commit a felony, but a common design quoad the homicidal act itself’

Judges:

Channell B

Citations:

[1864] EngR 75, (1864) 4 F and F 339, (1864) 176 ER 590

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.281789

Poachers were stopped by a gamekeeper, who was shot by one of them. Pollock CB explained the law as it affected accessories: ‘ . . the doctrine of constructive homicide . . does not apply where the only evidence is that the parties were engaged in an unlawful purpose: not being felonious. It only applies in cases where the common purpose is felonious, as in cases of burglary: where all the parties are aware that deadly weapons are taken with a view to inflict death or commit felonious violence, if resistance is offered. That doctrine arose from the desire on the part of old lawyers to render all parties who are jointly engaged in the commission of a felony responsible for deadly violence committed in the course of its execution. But that doctrine has been much limited in later times, and only applies in cases of felony, where there is no (sic) evidence of a felonious design to carry out the unlawful purpose at all hazards, and whatever may be the consequences. The possession of a gun would not be any evidence of this, for a gun is used in poaching. And poaching itself is only an unlawful act and a mere misdemeanour.’

Citations:

[1866] EngR 34, (1866) 4 F and F 831, (1866) 176 ER 854

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.280745