Scarman LJ referred to the need for similar fact evidence to be ‘believed’ and the need for the jury ‘to accept the evidence’: ‘Positive probative value is what the law requires, if similar fact evidence is to be admissible. Such probative value is not provided by the mere repetition of similar facts; there has to be some feature or features in the evidence sought to be adduced which provides a link – an underlying link as it has been called in some of the cases. The existence of such a link is not to be inferred from mere similarity of facts which are themselves so commonplace that they can provide no sure ground for saying that they point to the commission by the accused of the offence under consideration’

Judges:

Scarman LJ

Citations:

[1978] QB 1016

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell, Regina v SC 19-Oct-2016
Appeal against conviction for murder. Evidence was agreed with her representatives as to previous acts using knives, but was presented despite withdrawal by her of her consent. The prosecution now appealed against the quashing of the conviction.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.630593

The court considered whether an event might prejudice a fair trial, even if counsel do not raise the issue. The court dismissed the defendant’s appeals. In doing so it stated that too many counsel had been instructed. Leading and junior counsel had appeared for each defendant even though there was no possible conflict of interest between the defendants. Even though the charges were serious such a number of counsel were not necessary.

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Dobbs DBE The Hon. Sir Douglas Brown President of the Queens Bench Division

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 161, Times 16-Mar-2006, [2006] Crim LR 776

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitcham v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The applicant appealed against his sentence of death following his conviction for murder. He had been granted a stay of execution pending the appeal to the board and had since been given leave to appeal against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.239870

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635197

Appeal from conviction of defendant in his absence. He spoke little English, and his solicitors communicated through his sister. Unfortunately she moved before trial, and the communication of the trial date failed. The judge, learning of the situation decided he had no jurisdiction to set aside the verdict, but gave exceptional leave to appeal.
Held: Appeal allowed. Retrial.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 2027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.377746

The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife by giving her arsenic. His defence was that he had not administered the poison, although he admitted that he had arsenic which, he said, he used as a weed killer. He claimed that his wife had either committed suicide or had taken the arsenic by accident. The prosecution was permitted to call evidence that another solicitor, a Mr Martin, had visited the accused’s home eight months after his wife’s death and had suffered an episode of arsenic poisoning that evening. The purpose of calling evidence about the attempt to poison Mr Martin was, the prosecution said, to rebut the suggestion that Mrs Armstrong had either committed suicide or taken the arsenic by accident. The trial judge, Darling J. directed the jury that, unless it was proved that Armstrong had given arsenic to Martin with intent to injure him, the evidence had ‘no bearing whatever upon this case’.
Held: The conviction stood, with the Court approving the direction.
Discussion and disagreement in public as to what happened in the jury room is likely to undermine public confidence in the jury system. The very simplicity of the jury’s verdict, guilty or not guilty, is crucial.

Judges:

Lord Hewart

Citations:

[1922] 2 KB 555

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Mitchell, Regina v SC 19-Oct-2016
Appeal against conviction for murder. Evidence was agreed with her representatives as to previous acts using knives, but was presented despite withdrawal by her of her consent. The prosecution now appealed against the quashing of the conviction.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.192271

The court considered appeals by the Attorney-General against sentences considered to be too lenient, and in particular where a community penalty had been imposed rather than a sentence of immediate imprisonment.
Held: The Court emphasised the need for the strict care to be taken in selecting such cases, for appeal. The court should not interfere unless there was some error of principle in the sentence imposed. Where a non-custodial sentence had been imposed, the court should have available to it an up to date report on any progress made since the original sentence. The court would wish to take any such progress into account when deciding to re-sentence. In future a judge not following the sentencing guidelines should make it clear why he was doing so.

Judges:

Mr Justice Forbes The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Mr Justice Bell

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1934, Times 20-Jul-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 35 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 1989); Regina v Hill-Trevor CACD 1990
The Court of Appeal should not intervene unless it was shown that there was some error of principle in the judge’s sentence, so that public confidence would be damaged if the sentence were not altered. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) CACD 1990
The court considered the approach to be taken by an appellate court asked to review a sentence said to be unduly lenient: ‘The first thing to be observed is that it is implicit in the section that this Court may only increase sentences which it . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference No. 41 of 1994; Regina v O’Boyle CACD 1995
The level of sentencing for a section 18 offence involving ‘glassing’ is ‘somewhere between two-and-a-half years’ to five years’ imprisonment, depending on the individual circumstances’. . .
Cited – Attorney General v CCE, NJK and TAG; Attorney General’s References (Nos 91, 119, 120 of 2002) CACD 21-Jan-2003
The Attorney General referred sentences of the defendants for sexual assaults short of rape.
Held: The sentencing considerations outlined in the Millberry guidelines for sentencing in rape cases should be applied also for sexual offences of a . .
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .
Cited – Regina v Smith SJ CACD 2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Reyworth CACD 2004
The court discused sentences in cases involving perverting the course of justice: ‘cases such as the present must depend on their own facts’. . .
See Also – Attorney General’s Reference Nos. 31, 45, 43, 42, 50 and 51 of 2003 CACD 24-Jun-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199240

The complaint was of a failure of disclosure at trial, and disclosure pending appeal was necessary to enable the complaint to be investigated by the court.

Judges:

Hooper, Leveson LJJ, Mettyear HHJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Nunn, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
Limits to Duty To Investigate
The claimant had been convicted of a murder. He continued to protest his innocence, and now sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to act upon his requests for further investigations which might prove his innocence.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198345

Failure to hold an identification parade

Judges:

Mr Justice Royce Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198310

Appeal after statement of witness read to the court

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 553

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 24 25 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.536015

It was argued for the defendant that it had been an abuse of process to proceed with a hearing in respect of an application for a confiscation order under the 2002 Act at a time when for chronic illness, he was uable to attend or give instructions.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Hedley, Nicola Davies JJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 1198, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 420

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.448495

The defendant appealed a refusal of a certificate of inadequacy to an amount due under a confiscation order, saying that the court had wrongly allowed for the value of a consultancy agreement under which he was entitled to receive an annual fee for his services.
Held: The value of the contract was not realisable property within the section. It was a chose in action, but it was of the essence of the contract that the consideration was in respect of services which could only be provided in person by the defendant. The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2739 (Admin), Times 06-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 83(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – O’Donoghue, Re Criminal Justice Act 1988 Admn 10-Feb-2004
In its definition of realisable property, section 74(1) does not confine it to property held when the confiscation order was made. . .
Cited – Re Walbrook and Glasgow 1994
It is for the appellant to show, on balance of probability, that the amount that might be realised in respect of property was less than the value of the proceeds of crime. . .
Cited – In Re Glatt Admn 2002
If on an application made in respect of a confiscation order by the defendant the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of the amount remaining to be recovered under the order, the court shall issue a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.219923

The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between counsel and the judge. His case had been overturned because he had been warned to expect a sentence more severe than could have been imposed.
Held: A balance was to be found when compensating a defendant who was found not guilty or had his conviction overturned. A claim dould not be made here under s133, since it was not clear that there had been any miscarriage of justice. A judge or resident magistrate is a public servant, which is true, and to say that each is a member of the court to which he or she belongs. However at the time of the ministerial statements upon which the claim was made, a magistrate would not be seen as a member of a public authority, and therefore no claim for compensation would lie.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 17, Times 30-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1289

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 14(1)(a), Criminal Justice Act 1988 133(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 14(6)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – McFarland, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 28-Jun-2002
. .
Cited – Bateman and Howse, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-May-1994
The plaintiff had been convicted of several counts of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. He had appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that he had been convicted on the basis of evidence in statement form given . .
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Bateman – Regina v Same ex parte Howse QBD 5-May-1993
Compensation for a wrongful imprisonment should include circumstances of miscarriage of justice as well as pardons. A magistrate is not a public authority. The threshold of exceptionality is high: ‘It was essentially a question for the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Garner and Others Admn 19-Apr-1999
In exceptional cases, where judicial misconduct had been shown to have contributed to a wrongful conviction, it was proper for the Home Secretary to consider compensation for the defendant, and a policy excluding that as a possibility is unlawful. . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Regina (Conlon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 11-Dec-2000
. .
Cited – Campbell v HM Advocate 1941
A bribe accepted by a member of a licensing court, and the question was whether such a court was a ‘public body’ within the meaning of section 7 as extended by section 4(2) of the 1916 Act.
Held: The court were doubtful whether a licensing . .
Cited – Auckland Harbour Board v The King PC 1924
The making of ex gratia payments is lawful if, but not unless, there is Parliamentary authority for the disbursements: ‘It has been a principle of the British constitution now for more than two centuries . . that no money can be taken out of the . .
Cited – Regina v Home Secretary and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte P and Another CA 12-May-1994
The exclusion from claiming under the scheme, of victims within the same household, including sex abuse victims was not clearly unreasonable. The fact that the scheme was provided under the Crown prerogative did not exclude it from judicial review. . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex parte Lain QBD 1967
The Crown Prerogative origin of the power to make ex gratia payments does not exclude the scheme under which the payments are made from judicial review. Decisions of the Board may therefore be subject to judicial review.
Lord Parker CJ . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Harrison QBD 1988
A magistrate is not a ‘public authority’. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
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 – 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.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196075

The defendants appealed convictions for fraudulent evasion of the prohibition of importing of certain goods.
Held: The defendant had produced at trial a bunch of 400 pages of evidence which had not been disclosed to the prosecution. He had contributed to the need for detailed and protracted cross examination. Ways of saving time needed to be canvassed including the courts taking active case management whilst being fair to the parties.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Nelson, McCombe JJ

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2004, [2004] EWCA Crim 696

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195721

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant whose evidence had contained many demonstrable lies.
Held: Longmore LJ said: ‘the Crown does have obligations in respect of material in the hands of third parties and a conviction would, in any event, be unsafe if the absence of disclosure of material in the possession of a third party meant that an accused could not have a fair trial.’ Microsoft had given incorrect information about their involvement with the lying witness. They agreed to give full disclosure, but never did. The judge had made a formal order to solicitors acting for Microsoft for further discovery. Microsoft had done the minimum required to co-operate by the judge considered that a fair trial remained possible. The prosecution evidence case consisted of rather more than the evidence of the challenged witness. The conviction was safe.

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Silber, Andrew Smith JJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 681

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 81, Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 2, Indictments Act 1915 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD 1992
The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD 15-Jul-1992
The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc CACD 26-Jul-2002
The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon . .
Cited – Rex v Pople; Rex v Smith 1950
‘any alteration [of an indictment] in matters of description, and probably in many other respects, may be made in order to meet the evidence in the case as long as the amendment causes no injustice to the accused person’. . .
Cited – Regina v Radley 1973
Lord Widgery CJ ‘one ought to give a fairly liberal meaning to the language of section 5’ . .
Cited – Regina v Stanley CACD 8-Dec-1998
A count on an indictment alleging VAT offences which included charges both of understating outputs and making false input claims was defective in not allowing a jury to say clearly of which offence the accused was guilty. ‘the Court of Appeal had . .
Cited – Regina v Patel CACD 7-Aug-1991
Conspiracy . .
Cited – Regina v Coughlan and Young CACD 1976
Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect . .

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
Cited – Regina v Khan and Others CACD 7-Oct-2011
The appellants challenged their convictions for the fraudulent use of falsely completed applications to vote by post. They said that the prosecutors had failed properly to disclose other postal applications also suspected and collected by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195640

The court considered the drawing of adverse inferences form an accused’s silence in the police station when this was under legal advice: ‘The question in the end, it is for the jury, is whether regardless of advice, genuinely given and genuinely accepted, an accused has remained silent not because of that advice but because he had no or no satisfactory explanation to give. For this purpose, but only for this purpose, section 34 in its provision for the drawing of an adverse inference qualifies a defendants right to silence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Forbes

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 784

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina CACD 9-Feb-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Benn and Benn v Regina CA 30-Jul-2004
The defendants appealed against convictions for importing drugs. The evidence was circumstantial, including evidence of contamination of paper money with cocaine. New evidnce suggested the original forensic techniques had returned many false . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195090

The defendant had been convicted of offences of possessing a large number of indecent images of children.
Held: In such cases, the prosecution should frame the charges following the classification in R v Oliver, with a small number of representative charges out of each category with a comprehensive charge for the balance. The defence should be given adequate time and facilities to check the classifications. It should be clear whether it was alleged that any image was a true or a pseudo image. In this case, and allowing for the mitigation available, the sentence was too long.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 669, Times 16-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 160(1) 160(2A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Oliver etc CACD 21-Nov-2002
The defendants appealed their sentences for possession and distribution of indecent images of children. The court gave detailed sentencing guidelines for the offences. Distinctions were made for the gradations of pornography, from erotic posing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194991

The defendant said that since the evidence in chief of child prosecution witnesses had been recorded and made available to jurors, facility ought also to be provided for the recording of the cross examination of the same witness so that the jurors might have that evidence re-inforced also.
Held: No general rule was required for this purpose. The section gave appropriate powers to the judge to exercise.

Judges:

Mr Justice Astill Mr Justice Hooper Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 602, Times 19-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194658

The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual reason for the delay lay at the feet of the court, and the prosecution’s failure had not contributed. Accordingly the court could extend the custody time limit.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Rose LJ, Royce J

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-2004, [2004] EWHC 361 (Admin), Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1623

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bennett QBD 25-Jan-1999
When a court considered whether to extend the custody time limits a court must not make an allowance in favour of the prosecution for difficulties caused by the victim’s illness. Subsebtions 22(3)(a) and 22(3)(b) had both to be fulfilled. . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan Admn 18-May-1999
Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the . .
Cited – Regina (Bannister) v Guildford Crown Court Admn 2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McDonald; Regina v Leeds Crown Court, ex parte Hunt; Regina v Winchester Crown Court, ex parte Forbes, ex parte Wilson and Mason CACD 19-Nov-1998
When considering applications to extend the custody time limits, courts should have in view the purpose of the rules. It would be dangerous to give a list of good reasons for an extension. The court must itself consider the fulfilment of the section . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court, Ex parte Bagoutie 31-May-1999
Lord Bingham: ‘The court made plain in Ex p McDonald, as indeed is plain on the face of the statute, that when seeking an extension or a further extension of the custody time limit the Crown must show that there is good and sufficient [reason] for . .

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Cited – Thomas v Central Criminal Court; Stubbs v Same Admn 7-Jul-2006
The applicants sought judicial review of decisions to extend the custody time limits.
Held: Where a further extension is sought, it is in the public interest and the interests of justice that the court should confine its consideration under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194796

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 492

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Toney Admn 14-Jul-2005
The defendant appealed a refusal to allow him to withdraw a plea of guilty. He was accused of assaulting his wife. He had had legal advice before interview and trial.
Held: Though the defendant had not waived privilege a note had been placed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194432

The defendant had been convicted of conspiring to import cannabis, and made subject inter alia to a confiscation order.
Held: ‘ the object of the Act is to ensure, so far as is possible, that the convicted drug trafficker is parted from the proceeds of any drug trafficking which he has carried out. The provisions are intentionally Draconian. Since the amount of those proceeds and the size of his realisable assets at the time of conviction are likely to be peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge, it is not surprising perhaps if evidential burdens are cast upon him of a kind which are, to say the least, unusual in the area of the criminal law and this, despite the fact that the confiscation order and the penalties for failing to comply with it may be rigorous.’
However, the burden was on the Crown to prove according to the criminal standard that the defendant had benefitted from drug trafficking and what the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking was. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘It is clear . . that where the prosecution statement is not accepted by the defendant, the prosecution, if they wish to rely on any of its contents, must adduce evidence to establish them.
The judge then hears the evidence on either side and reaches his conclusion (1) as to whether the defendant has successfully rebutted any provisional assumptions under section 2; (2) as to the existence of any benefit from drug trafficking; and (3) as to the value of such benefit.’

Judges:

Lord Lane LCJ, Judge, Roch JJ

Citations:

[1990] 2 QB 102, [1990] EWCA Crim 4, (1990) 154 JP 979, [1990] 2 WLR 1384, [1990] 2 All ER 626, (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 191, (1990) 91 Cr App R 164, [1990] Crim LR 603

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Cain HL 1985
The sentencing judge had exceeded his powers by making a criminal bankruptcy order. S40 appeared to deny a right of appeal against such an order.
Held: There is a strong presumption that except by specific provision the legislature will not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rose CACD 17-Feb-1993
A judge must follow the Regina v Dickens guidelines when making a drugs confiscation order. Alliott J said: ‘We agree that if admissible evidence satisfies a judge so that he is sure that any given sum is a benefit, then there is no need for him to . .
Cited – Regina v Levin CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, challenging the standard of proof applied by the judge.
Held: The judge was entitled to include in his consideration, the evidence given at the trial as well as that on the confiscation . .
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Silcock and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendants had been found guilty of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit notes. They now appealed against sentence and confiscation orders. The notes were high quality and denomination dollar notes, with probable total face values of many millions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193766

The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a fact relied on in his defence for the purpose of section 34. ‘Since the object of section 34 is to bring the law back into line with common sense, we think it clear that ‘fact’ should be given a broad and not a narrow or pedantic meaning. The word covers any alleged fact which is in issue and is put forward as part of the defence case: if the defendant advances at trial any pure fact or exculpatory explanation or account which, if it were true, he could reasonably have been expected to advance earlier, section 34 is potentially applicable.’ and ‘a defendant relies on a fact or matter in his defence not only when he gives or adduces evidence of it but also when counsel, acting on his instructions, puts a specific and positive case to prosecution witnesses, as opposed to asking questions intended to probe or test the prosecution case.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 1, Times 23-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 404

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34(2)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Appeal from – Regina v Ashton, Lyons and Webber CACD 6-Dec-2002
The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard.
Held: The appellants’ rights had been infringed by the delay, and they . .
Cited – Rex v Naylor 1932
The defendant’s conviction was found unsafe because of the judge’s adverse comments on his silence. . .
Cited – Regina v Gilbert CACD 1977
The defendant on a charge of murder had claimed at trial that he had acted in self-defence. He had not said anything of this sort in his police statement under caution. The trial judge had invited the jury, in the exercise of their common sense, to . .
Cited – Regina v McLernon CANI 1992
D argued that the words ‘any fact relied on in his defence’ in article 3 meant that it could apply only where a fact which the accused relied on was advanced by the accused in the witness box at the trial, or by a witness called at the trial on . .
Cited – Regina v Devine CANI 13-May-1992
The trial judge had drawn an adverse inference under article 3. The defendant complained that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had simply tested the prosecution case.
Held: ‘in this case it cannot be said that the accused . .
Cited – Regina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
Cited – Regina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
Cited – Regina v Nickolson CACD 23-Jan-1998
D appealed against his conviction of indecently assaulting his young stepdaughter, on whose nightdress a small amount of seminal staining had been found. Giving evidence at trial he was asked by his counsel if he could think of any way in which . .
Cited – Regina v Mahmood CACD 27-Jan-1998
The appellant was convicted of supplying heroin. He and his co-defendant who had pleaded guilty, had been filmed on video. The appellant did not give evidence but contended that it was the other, not he, who had supplied the heroin and received the . .
Cited – Regina v Bowers, Taylor, Millan CACD 13-Mar-1998
Bowers and Millan complained that the direction given under section 34 was impermissible. The ground of complaint was that they had not relied on any fact by way of defence, but had simply put the prosecution to proof.
Held: The court asked . .
Cited – Regina v Reader, Connor, Hart CACD 7-Apr-1998
Reader gave a no comment interview and did not testify at trial, because it was common ground that his counsel had done no more than put the prosecution to proof.
Held: A setion 34 direction was wrong under these circumstances. . .
Cited – Regina v Hart and Mclean CACD 23-Apr-1998
D complained that the judge had relied upon an inference under section 34 when holding that he had a case to answer.
Held: The judge was wrong to do so: ‘The sort of circumstances we conceive to which paragraph (c) of subsection (2) [of . .
Cited – Regina v Mountford CACD 21-Dec-1998
M was convicted of possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. His defence at trial was that W was the dealer and he was merely a purchaser. He had not mentioned this to the police when questioned, on the ground (he said) that he did not want . .
Cited – Regina v Bowden (BT) CACD 10-Feb-1999
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong . .
Cited – Regina v Gill CACD 2001
. .
Cited – Regina v Wisdom and Sinclair CACD 10-Dec-1999
Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for . .
Qualified – Regina v Hearne and Coleman CACD 4-May-2000
D appealed a conviction after direction under s34.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Section 34 is designed, in part at any rate and perhaps principally, to deal with the sort of situation which not infrequently arises where a defence is advanced . .
Cited – Regina v Bowden (BT) CACD 10-Feb-1999
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong . .
Cited – Regina v Milford CACD 21-Dec-2000
D was charged with three co-defendants with conspiring to import cannabis. He gave a largely no comment interview to the interviewing customs officer, but at trial said that the contacts with his co-defendants were innocent. Since this account had . .
Cited – Regina v Chenia CACD 1-Nov-2002
CS The defendant had made no comment replies during interview. He did not give evidence at trial, but otherwise took part, though he did not put any fact before the jury. The judge directed the jury that they . .
Cited – Regina v Tibbs CACD 28-Feb-2000
The meaning of a defence as included in a defence statement refers to a defence in its general sense. Where the facts supporting a defence statement differed when the matter came to trial it was correct for the defendant to be cross-examined about . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192109

Appeal based on late in the day request by judge to jury to retire.
Held: Earlier guidance was derived from surrounding circumstances such as rules on not allowing juries to separate, which no longer applied. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Sweeney, Lewis JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 789, [2018] 4 WLR 84, [2018] Crim LR 759, [2018] 4 All ER 622

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fraud Act 2006 1, Juries Act 1974 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.624048

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2838 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188507

The defendant faced a charge of causing actual bodily harm to a 19 year-old. There was an eye witness, who was no doubt a friend of the complainant, aged 18. The defendant was 15. When first listed for trial neither prosecution witnesses attended on time, and nor did the claimant. The complainant was in bed but there was no information about the eye witness. The claimant not having arrived, an adjournment was granted. Both complainant and the claimant did arrive later in the day. The witness gave no explanation of his absence. The trial was re-listed. Again the complainant and the witness did not attend, both being at work and the excuse was that they had thought that the trial was due to be heard the following day. That excuse was later discovered to be almost certainly untrue.
Held: The court did not accept that it was correct for the district judge to have adjourned the matter.

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2584 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188317

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2659 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188321

M was convicted of possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. His defence at trial was that W was the dealer and he was merely a purchaser. He had not mentioned this to the police when questioned, on the ground (he said) that he did not want to land W in trouble. The judge directed the jury under section 34.
Held: No such direction should have been given: ‘The judge gave no guidance to the jury as to how they should approach this issue. ‘The fact’ not revealed in interview constituted the defence to the charge. In other words whether ‘the fact’ not revealed was or may have been true was the issue in the case the resolution of which would determine the verdict. It is difficult to see how the jury could have rejected the appellant’s reason for not mentioning ‘the fact’ without also rejecting the truth of ‘the fact’ – the truth of each depended on the truth of the other. In our judgment, this element of circularity could only be resolved by a verdict founded not in any way upon the section 34 point but upon the other evidence in the case. A verdict of ‘guilty’ would obviously establish that ‘the fact’ not mentioned was untrue and accordingly that the explanation for not mentioning it was equally untrue. In this case, as it seems to us, the evidence which resolved the section 34 issue was the very evidence which resolved the issue in the case and therefore determined the verdict. There was, in our judgment, no evidential basis upon which the section 34 issue could have been resolved as an independent issue in the case, thus permitting an ensuing adverse inference to be used as some additional support for the prosecution’s case. This was a case which turned on the jury’s assessment of the credibility of each man – Williams (the prosecution witness) and Mountford (the then defendant). It was accordingly particularly important for the jury to have had spelt out to them that as a matter of common sense there was, for the prosecution, no mileage in the section 34 point. The jury were left to make what they could of it. It may be that they realised that it would have been unfair to draw an adverse inference given the particular circumstances. Of that, however, we cannot be sure. Superficially the point has its attractions. Our conclusion is that the verdict cannot be regarded as safe, and for that reason the conviction must be quashed.’

Judges:

Henry, Mitchell LJJ, Mellor J

Citations:

[1999] Crim LR 575, [1998] EWCA Crim 3534

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34(2)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Disapproved – Regina v Gowland-Wynn CACD 26-Nov-2001
Where during a police interview, the defendant had maintained silence without stating facts which went to the heart of his defence, it was proper for the judge to refer to the section which would allow the jury to make proper inferences from that . .
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183050

Appeal against refusal of restraint order.
Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: ‘All that I think it appropriate on this appeal to add by way of comment on the approach to adopt to the exercise of section 26 powers is that if, on the documents, a good arguable case arises for the treating of particular assets as the realisable property of the defendant – here on the basis that the company’s corporate veil should properly be pierced – then the relevant restraint (and possibly receivership) order(s) should ordinarily be made. That essentially is the test for the grant of Mareva relief. So too should it be the test for the exercise of the section 26 powers. It is, of course, open to third parties (or the defendant himself where the order is made without notice) to apply to set it aside.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Simon Brown VP

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1720

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178473

Prosecution appeal from stay of prosecution.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2426

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.628210

The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements for a fair hearing in a case of this kind: ‘1) The Juror must understand what he is said to have done wrong;
2) The court must be satisfied that the juror when (by act or omission) he did wrong, had the means of knowing that it was wrong;
3) The juror must understand what defences (if any) may be available to him;
4) The juror must have a reasonable opportunity to make any relevant representations he wishes;
5) If necessary the juror must have an opportunity to consider what representations he wishes to make once he has understood the issues involved.’ In this case it was not clear that the defenedant had known the defence of reasonable cause. He had intensely personal reasons, born of traumatic experience, for fearing a search which involved either a metal wand or human touch. That being so the appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Potter LJ, Rafferty, Hedley JJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1328

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Juries Act 1974 20, Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 155

Citing:

Cited – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the . .
Cited – Ravnsborg v Sweden ECHR 23-Mar-1994
Article 6 did not apply to proceedings where the applicant had been fined for making improper statements in written observations before the Swedish courts. The proceedings were regarded as being outside the ambit of article 6 because they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175249

The purpose of orders under the section is to deal with reports of proceedings which are fair and accurate, but which should nonetheless be postponed, not with other material the publication of which might constitute a contempt of Court.

Judges:

Lord Justice General

Citations:

[2000] ScotHC 86, 2001 SLT 465

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Scarsbrook Or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Jun-2001
. .
See Also – Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate (No.2) HCJ 21-Jun-2001
The court considered the defence of diminished responsibility to a charge of murder.
Held: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: ‘It is, of course, impossible to attempt to describe the ambit of the doctrine of diminished responsibility without even . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 1) HCJ 17-Sep-2001
The defendant complained that the publicity preceding his trial for a notorious murder would prejudice his right to a fair trial, and sought an order under the 1981 Act to delay any further publicity until after the trial, partcularly where previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170661

The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the custody time limits in his matter had expired before his trial began. An application to extend the limits had to be made before the limit, and had to show proper conduct of the case. For serious fraud cases, such as this, the trial was deemed to have begun at the time of the preparatory hearing. That preparatory hearing had been conducted informally, and in the absence of this defendant. Could a preparatory hearing take place for some defendants, but not others, and was it still a preparatory hearing, if it was only in name?
Held: The regulations did not envisage preparatory hearings against only one of the defendants on an indictment. It was for the judge to decide if a preparatory hearing was warranted. If so, there was to be one preparatory hearing, which might be adjourned on more than one occasion. Nevertheless the hearing in issue was not a preparatory hearing, and the custody time limits had been spent.
It was not acceptable that the hearing at which so little was achieved should have the result of depriving the respondent of his liberty for the many months that were going to elapse before his trial was heard. After concluding that it was a fiction, and in his view an impermissible fiction, to say that the preparatory hearing began on that date, he made these observations: ‘It might be said that the applicant is exploiting a technical argument when it is clear that those involved in the proceedings regarded the preparatory hearing as begun against him and the custody time limit protected. And it might well be that in this case the prosecution could have justified an application to extend the time limit: indeed, although I have not heard argument on the point, there is every indication that, if the Crown had sought an extension of the custody time limits the defendants would have had difficulty in resisting it. However the fact remains that, although Mrs Radford fired a warning shot on 5 October 2001 when the prosecution could still have applied for an extension of the limit, no application was made. The custody time limits rules are an important safeguard for accused persons and demand that prosecutors and the court consider with care whether prolonged detention before trial is properly justified. This is witnessed by the narrow view the courts have taken of what constitutes ‘good and sufficient cause’ to extend custody time limits. It is not an answer to an accused entitled to his liberty after the limit has expired that his argument is a technical one.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Andrew Smith

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 109 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22, Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 5(6B)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex parte Customs and Excise Commissioners QBD 1993
The court found that there was one preparatory hearing in existence, and that that had been conducted before Judge Anwyl-Davies QC. But the trial was listed for hearing before Judge Mota Singh QC, simply because of a direction by the presiding judge . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – In re Kanaris (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant faced charges with others on the same indictment. The judge called a preparatory hearing under the 1996 Act, against the others, but held a separate hearing for the defendant, at which he held a similar preparatory hearing for him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168022