Category: Crime

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 to distribution or publication of them.

Times 03-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 825
Protection of Children Act 1978, Obscene Publications Act 1959
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Straker v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1963
The defendant had been prosecuted with respect to negatives of films, and argued that a negative was not an article within section 1(2); it was not a film, and that even if it were an article thus defined, it could not be obscene unless published, . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 1980) CACD 1980
The court was asked whether a person who provides screen images derived from a video tape ‘publish[es] an obscene article’ contrary to section 2 of the 1959 Act.
Held: Such a publication came within the Act. The court rejected the defendants’ . .
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:
Cited – Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions; Goodland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Mar-2000
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.148489

Begg v HM Treasury: CA 23 Jun 2016

The claimant had been charged with terrorist associated offences. The trial was dropped, and the police declared him innocent, but the freeze of his funds remained in place. He sought a costs protection order.

Lord Dyson MR, Longmore, Lloyd Jones LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 568
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime, Costs

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565951

Evans, Regina v: CACD 6 Nov 2012

Renewed application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence after conviction for rape. The prosecution had been on the basis that the claimant had been too intoxicated to consent.
Held: Refused.

Lord Judge LCJ, Mitting, Griffith Williams JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 2559
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.565838

Balogh C-25/15: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to interpretation and translation – Directive 2010/64/EU – Scope – Definition of criminal proceedings – Procedure laid down by a Member State for the recognition of a decision in criminal proceedings handed down by a court in another Member State and for the entry in the criminal record of the conviction handed down by that court – Costs in connection with the translation of that decision – Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA – Decision 2009/316/JHA

ECLI:EU:C:2016:423, [2016] EUECJ C-25/15
Bailii
Directive 2010/64/EU

European, Crime

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565597

Buckinghamshire County Council v MA and Another: FD 16 May 2016

Proceedings brought by Buckinghamshire County Council to make three children wards of court and also pursuant to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. The respondents are the mother and father, respectively, of the children concerned.

Holman J
[2016] EWHC 1338 (Fam)
Bailii
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
England and Wales

Children, Crime

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565531

Pacurar, Regina v: CACD 13 Apr 2016

The defendant had been convicted of an offence under s 63 of the 2003 Act, of trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence He appealed saying that the section should be read to require the identification of the sexual offence which was intended to be committed.
Held: The appeal failed. The section had not been considered previously. The words were not ambiguous, and any offence which would come within Pat 1 of the 2003 Act would satisfy the requirements. It would not be necessary for the judge to detail each of the possible offences, and nor was it necessary to demonstrate that the jury had all considered the same offence.

Hallett VP CACD LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Bourne-Arton QC HHJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 569, [2016] WLR (D) 171
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences Act 2003 63
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565537

Derbyshire v Houliston: QBD 11 May 1897

The appellant was charged, under s. 27 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, with giving a false warranty in writing to a purchaser in respect of an article of food sold by the appellant. When the appellant sold the article he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that the warranty was false. Held, that he was not liable to be convicted.
Wright J said: ‘The general rule is that a presumption exists that mens rea is essential to every criminal offence. There are instances in which it has been held that this presumption is displaced by the words of the statute creating the offence, but where this is the case the intention must be clearly expressed.’

Hawkins J, Wright J
[1897] 1 QB 772, [1897] UKLawRpKQB 82
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sherras v De Rutzen QBD 2-May-1895
The court considered the need to establish mens rea where it was dealing with something which was one of a class of acts which ‘are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty’, and ‘There . .

Cited by:
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.653246

Hobbs v Winchester Corporation: CA 18 Jun 1910

Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was found that he was nonetheless ‘in default’ for the purpose of section 308, so that his claim for compensation failed.
Kennedy LJ said that, ‘I think there is a clear balance of authority that in construing a modern statute this presumption as to mens rea does not exist’.

Kennedy LJ
[1910] 2 KB 471, 26 TLR 557, 102 LT 841, 74 JP 413, [1910] UKLawRpKQB 108
Commonlii
Public Health Act 1875
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cundy v Le Cocq QBD 26-May-1884
Reuirement fo Mens Rea is not Universal
The Licensing Act, 1872, s. 13, makes it an offence for any licensed person to sell any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person. A publican sold intoxicating liquor to a drunken person who had given no indication of intoxication, and without being . .

Cited by:
Cited – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council TCC 12-Apr-2013
Application for compensation under s.106 of the Building Act 1984 for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under s.78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The court rejected the defence, holding . .
Cited – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council CA 7-May-2014
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claim to compensation under the 1984 Act as tenants of a pier closed by the Authority. The Authority said that it had failed to comply with its leasehold obligations of repair, and was in default under . .
Cited – Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Crime

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.628554

Brown v The Queen: PC 9 Feb 2016

The defendant had been convicted of murder. The court now considered whether there had been adequate investigation of his mental health condition.

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKPC 6
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564474

Crown Prosecution Service v Christof: Admn 22 Oct 2015

The defendant on being arrested was found to have a buckle to his belt which, when removed, would also serve as a knuckleduster.
Held: The district judge had made his decision without examining the object itself. He should have done so. The matter was remitted: ‘notwithstanding that judicial notice must be taken of the fact that knuckledusters are offensive weapons, it was possible for the district judge to conclude that this item was not an offensive weapon per se.’

Beatson LJ, Mitting J
[2015] EWHC 4096 (Admin)
Bailii

Crime

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564418

Regina v Prince: 1875

The defendant was convicted of unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out the possession of her father. The defendant bona fide and on reasonable grounds believed that the girl was over 16.
Held: This provided no defence. ‘It seems impossible to suppose that the intention of the legislature in those two sections could have been to make the crime depend upon the knowledge of the prisoner of the girl’s actual age. It would produce the monstrous result that a man who had carnal connection with a girl, in reality not quite ten years old, but whom he on reasonable grounds believed to be a little more than ten, was to escape altogether. He could not, in that view of the statute, be convicted of the felony, for he did not know her to be under ten. He could not be convicted of the misdemeanour, because she was in fact not above the age of ten. It seems to us that the intention of the legislature was to punish those who had connection with young girls, though with their consent, unless the girl was in fact old enough to give a valid consent. The man who has connection with a child, relying on her consent, does it at his peril, if she is below the statutable age. The 55th section, on which the present case arises, uses precisely the same words as those in sections 50 and 51, and must be construed in the same way.’ Brett J (dissenting) ‘Upon all the cases I think it is proved that there can be no conviction for crime in England in the absence of a criminal mind or mens rea.’

Blackburn J, Brett J
(1875) LR 2 CCR 154, 32 LT 700, 44 LJMC 122
Offences against the Persons Act 1861 51 50
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
Cited – Regina v K HL 25-Jul-2001
In a prosecution for an offence of indecent assault on a girl under 16 under the section, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a positive belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 16 or over. The legislation history . .
Cited – Brown, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 26-Jun-2013
The complainaint, a 13 year old girl had first said that the defendant had had intercourse with her againt her consent. After his arrest, she accepted that this was untrue. On being recharged with unlawful intercourse, he admitted guilt believing he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.195980

Regina v Stephens: 1866

The court was asked whether the owner of a slate quarry was answerable for a public nuisance caused by his workmen without his knowledge and contrary to his general orders.
Held: Mellor J: ‘It is quite true that this in point of form is a proceeding of a criminal nature, but in substance I think it is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and I can see no reason why a different rule should prevail with regard to such an act as is charged in this indictment between proceedings which are civil and proceedings which are criminal. I think there may be nuisances of such a character that the rule I am applying here, would not be applicable to them, but here it is perfectly clear that the only reason for proceeding criminally is that the nuisance, instead of being merely a nuisance affecting an individual, or one or two individuals, affects the public at large, and no private individual, without receiving some special injury, could have maintained an action. Then if the contention of those who say the direction is wrong is to prevail, the public would have great difficulty in getting redress. The object of this indictment is to prevent the recurrence of the nuisance. The prosecutor cannot proceed by action, but must proceed by indictment, and if this were strictly a criminal proceeding the prosecution would be met with the objection that there was no mens rea: that the indictment charged the defendant with a criminal offence, when in reality there was no proof that the defendant knew of the act, or that he himself gave orders to his servants to do the particular act he is charged with; still at the same time it is perfectly clear that the defendant finds the capital, and carries on the business which causes the nuisance, and it is carried on for his benefit; although from age or infirmity the defendant is unable to go to the premises, the business is carried on for him by his sons, or at all events by his agents. Under these circumstances the defendant must necessarily give to his servants or agents all the authority that is incident to the carrying on of the business. It is not because he had at some time or other given directions that it should be carried on so as not to allow the refuse from the works to fall into the river, and desired his servants to provide some other place for depositing it, that when it has fallen into the river, and has become prejudicial to the public, he can say he is not liable on an indictment for a nuisance caused by the acts of his servants. It appears to me that all it was necessary to prove is, that the nuisance was caused in the carrying on of the works of the quarry.’

Blackburn J: ‘All that it is necessary to say is this, that where a person maintains works by his capital, and employs servants, and so carries on the works as in fact to cause a nuisance to a private right, for which an action would lie, if the same nuisance inflicts an injury upon a public right the remedy for which would be by indictment, the evidence which would maintain the action would also support the indictment. That is all that it was necessary to decide and all that is decided.’

Mellor J, Blackburn J
(1866) LR 1 QB 702
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sherras v De Rutzen QBD 2-May-1895
The court considered the need to establish mens rea where it was dealing with something which was one of a class of acts which ‘are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty’, and ‘There . .
Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.231627

Coleman, Regina v: CACD 18 Oct 2016

Where a convicted defendant has been ordered in the Crown Court to pay an amount towards the prosecution costs at a time when it is properly assessed that he has the assets to meet such a liability, can, or at all events should, he thereafter be permitted to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) seeking a quashing or reduction of the costs order on the ground of a subsequent change in financial circumstances? The appellant says that he can and should and seeks to rely on a previous decided case to that effect. The respondent Crown says that he cannot, or at all events should not, and the appropriate application should be made to the Magistrates’ Court as the collecting and enforcing court.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1665, [2017] 4 WLR 29
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.570984

Keyes, Regina v: CACD 3 Aug 1999

The defendant appealed agaonst conviction for attempted robbery, having presented himself at three banks, demanding money and saying that he had a gun. It was not disputed that the acts done by the appellant in each case were sufficient for attempted robbery provided that he had the necessary intent.
Held: The evidence that the appellant intended to rob was unsatisfactory. There was evidence that he was well under the influence of drink and that his behaviour was that of a man who suffered mental illness. He had been drinking, and the evidence was consistent with his being what he is – a lonely, isolated, elderly man seeking attention from others. Appeal allowed.

Roch LJ, Rougier, Wright JJ
[1999] EWCA Crim 2168
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563183

Muhib, Regina v: CACD 13 Jan 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts,
Held: ‘there is no possible logical inconsistency in the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter in relation to one victim of the applicant’s knife, and a verdict of wounding with intent in relation to another such victim. That being so, it is in our judgment quite unarguable that the verdict on count 3 in this indictment should be regarded as unsafe, on the ground of inconsistency. It follows that the application for leave to appeal against conviction fails.’

Rose VP CACD LJ, Latham J, Sir Patrick Russell
[1998] EWCA Crim 34
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Durante CACD 1972
Logical inconsistency is generally an essential prerequisite for success of an appeal against conviction on the ground of inconsistency of verdicts. . .
Cited – Regina v McCluskey CACD 4-Jun-1993
The consent of the Court of Appeal was needed to sanction any jury enquiry. . .
Cited – Regina v McKechnie 1992
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it. . .
Cited – Regina v Clarke and Fletcher CACD 30-Jul-1997
Hutchison LJ said: ‘The way in which this Court should approach an appeal against conviction, based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is well settled. To succeed the appellant must show first the verdicts are logically inconsistent, and secondly, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563174

Fanning and Others, Regina v: CACD 28 Apr 2016

The cases raised the issue as to the proper approach on an application for leave to appeal where it is contended that the verdicts of the jury were inconsistent.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Hallett VP CACD, Treacy LJJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 550, [2016] WLR(D) 218, [2016] Crim LR 686, [2016] 1 WLR 4175, [2016] 2 Cr App R 19
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562921

Hussain, Regina v (No 2): CACD 28 Apr 2016

Fulford LJ, Jay
[2016] EWCA Crim 547
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hussain, Regina v (No 1) CACD 28-Apr-2016
Appeal from conviction of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He had obtained work with a bank having ticked a form to deny any unspent convictions. The Bank would not have taken him on with the convictions. He said that the form had been . .
Cited – Regina v Hillier and Farrar CACD 1993
The defendant in question had not give evidence.
Held: The correct approach to be followed by the judge was: ‘What the jury needed to be reminded of in his defence was relevant matter contained in his pre-trial statements and interviews with . .
Cited – Singh-Mann and Others v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to defraud, attacking the judge’s summing up.
Held: The appeals failed.
Fulford LJ said, as to where the accused had not given evidence: ‘On the basis of those authorities, . .
Cited – Lunkulu and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2015
Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562922

Hussain, Regina v (No 1): CACD 28 Apr 2016

Appeal from conviction of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He had obtained work with a bank having ticked a form to deny any unspent convictions. The Bank would not have taken him on with the convictions. He said that the form had been completed by the employment agency. A note from a juror had suggested possible doubt.
Held: The judge had dealth properly with the note: ‘ The directions in law to the jury were entirely correct, and these notes simply reveal that at some stage in their deliberations one or more jurors were uncertain as to whether there was sufficient evidence. The judge reminded the jury they would not receive further evidence and that they must base their decision on the evidence in the case. Having received that direction, the jury returned a unanimous verdict. This demonstrates no more than a stage in the process of the jury’s consideration of this case, when there was a clear element of uncertainty, and it does not arguably reveal an ‘inconsistency’ with the final verdict or some other event that renders this conviction unsafe.’

Fulford LJ, Jay J, Batty QC HHJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 548
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Hussain, Regina v (No 2) CACD 28-Apr-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562923

AD, Regina v: CACD 29 Apr 2016

The defendant appealed agaist his conviction. The section referred to a sexual assault on a girl, but the offence alleged an offence against his son.
Held: The appeal failed. The Criminal Procedure Rules were directory in nature and not mandatory.

Davis LJ, Turner , Laing JJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 454, [2016] WLR(D) 249
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences Act 1956 14(1) 15
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562920

Richardson and Another, Regina v: CACD 16 Nov 1998

The defendants, convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm, appealed on the basis that: ‘There was a misdirection in that the jury were directed that the intention of the defendant should be on the basis of a reasonable (i.e. not under the influence of drink) man and not (as they were) under the influence of drink.’
Held: The direction was wrog. The appeals succeeded.

[1998] EWCA Crim 3269
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562784