B v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Hardial Singh – Dismissed): SIAC 29 Jan 2014

[2014] UKSIAC 09/2005
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522152

M, Regina v: CACD 14 Aug 2008

A criminal restraint order had been made against the defendant. He was alleged to have breached the order. The court considered whether the Crown Court had power to consider this as a complaint of contempt.

Bean J
[2008] EWCA Crim 1901, [2009] 1 WLR 1179
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales

Crime, Contempt of Court

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.273130

Pace and Another v Regina: CACD 18 Feb 2014

The defendants, scrap metal merchants, appealed against convictions for attemption to deal in stolen metals. The court was asked as to the mental element required for criminal attempt under section 1 of the 1981. The context here was an accusation of concealing, disguising or converting criminal property contrary to s.327(l) of the 2002 Act, under which it was necessary to establish that certain elements were suspicious.
Held: The appeals against conviction were allowed. Section 327(1) required the defendant to have known that the property was criminal property. Mere suspicion of that fact was insufficient.

Davis LJ, Blake, Lewis JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 186, [2014] WLR(D) 81, [2014] 1 Cr App R 34, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 319, (2014) 178 JP 133, [2014] 1 WLR 286
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 327(1)
England and Wales


Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521484

Regina v Lally: CACD 7 Jul 2021

Appeal from conviction of attempted murder.

Lady Justice Simler DBE,
Mrs Justice Cutts DBE,
His Honour Judge Picton,
(Sitting as a Judge of the Cacd)
[2021] EWCA Crim 1372
England and Wales


Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.670127

Hiri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Feb 2014

The Claimant applied for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to refuse his application for naturalisation as a British citizen, and subsequently confirmed on review. The reason for refusal was that the Defendant was not satisfied that he met the ‘good character’ requirement for naturalisation because of his conviction for a speeding offence which would not be ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 until 17th November 2016. He had been driving at 81mph in a temporary 50mph section of a motorway.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was not irrational, but had erred on concentrating solely on the conviction: ‘ in deciding whether an applicant for naturalisation meets the requirement that ‘he is of good character’, for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Defendant must consider all aspects of the applicant’s character. The statutory test is not whether applicants have previous criminal convictions – it is much wider in scope than that. In principle, an applicant may be assessed as a person ‘of good character’, for the purposes of the 1981 Act, even if he has a criminal conviction. Equally, he may not be assessed as a person ‘of good character’ even if he does not have a criminal conviction. ‘ The respondent had ignored unusually strong evidence of good character.

Lang DBE J
[2014] EWHC 254 (Admin)
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, British Nationality Act 1981 6(1)

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521402

Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions: SC 5 Feb 2014

The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of free speech.
Held: The postulated offences all were either not demonstrated to have been committed by the occupants of the shop at the time of the defendants’ trespass or were at most collateral to the core activity of selling rather than integral to that activity. The occupants of the shop were, accordingly, engaged in the lawful activity of retail selling at the time and section 68(2) provided no defence to the defendants.
The article 10 claim also failed. Article 10 does not confer a licence to trespass on other people’s property in order to give voice to one’s views.
Lord Hughes spoke abot section 68 of the 1994 Act: ‘The intention of the section is plainly to add the sanction of the criminal law to a trespass where, in addition to the defendant invading the property of someone else where he is not entitled to be, he there disrupts an activity which the occupant is entitled to pursue. Section 68(2) therefore must mean that the additional criminal sanction is removed when the activity which is disrupted is, in itself, unlawful, which may be either because the occupant is himself trespassing, or because his activity is criminal. Mr Southey’s realistic concession is correct, for not every incidental or collateral criminal offence can properly be said to affect the lawfulness of the activity, nor to render it criminal. It will do so only when the criminal offence is integral to the core activity carried on. It will not do so when there is some incidental or collateral offence, which is remote from the activity. The decisions in Hibberd and Nelder are both consistent with this approach. The certified question ought thus to be answered ‘Yes’.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 8, [2014] 1 Cr App R 29, [2014] 2 WLR 288, [2014] 1 AC 635, [2014] WLR(D) 52, [2014] Crim LR 817, [2014] 2 All ER 20, UKSC 2012/0198
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Appeal fromNero and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 29-Mar-2012
Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedAyliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Apr-2005
The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that . .
CitedHibberd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Nov-1996
The defendant trespasser set out to stop the clearance of land for the construction of a new by-pass. He gave evidence that one or more of the tree-fellers was using a chainsaw but not wearing gloves and suggested that that raised the real . .
CitedNelder and Others v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 3-Jun-1998
Hunt saboteurs set out to disrupt a hunt, and were accused of offences of aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act. They defended saying that they had been prevening unlawful activities. They brought evidence that at the outset of the hunt, two . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521158

Khan and Others, Regina v: CACD 12 Mar 2009

The court discussed constricting of the classes of individual liable for duty on tobacco products which the 2001 Regulations introduced.

Hughes LJ VP, King J, Gordon HHJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 588
Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 12(1)
Cited by:
CitedMackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520856

Regina v Smith: CACD 24 May 2011

Appeal from conviction of murder on one ground – the difficulties faced by the defence at trial when a decision was made not to call its fingerprint expert and the fresh fingerprint evidence now available.

Lord Justice Thomas
[2011] EWCA Crim 1296, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 16
England and Wales


Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.440135

Campaign Against Antisemitism v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 9 Jan 2019

The CAA challenged the decision of the DPP to take over and discontinue its private prosecution of Mr Ali under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for statements he made at a rally which he led in Central London on 18 June 2017. Under section 5, it is an offence to use abusive words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The DPP took the view that, in all the circumstances, the words used were not ‘abusive’ within the meaning of that provision so that a prosecution was more likely than not to fail. As a result, under the DPP’s policy in respect of private prosecutions, she was bound to take over the prosecution and discontinue it, which she did. The CAA submits that, on the undisputed facts, that decision was irrational. The DPP maintains that the decision was lawful.

[2019] EWHC 9 (Admin)
England and Wales


Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.632088

Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 9 Dec 2013

The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The power to give directions is to be used, not just when the organisers of a procession have been co-operative enough to tell the police in advance of their intentions as to a specific route, but and perhaps more importantly when they have not done so. It would be an absurd interpretation if a direction, aimed at preventing serious disruption, could not be given unless the police knew as a matter of objectively provable fact that the procession would follow a specific route from A to B via particular roads, despite disruptive organisers masking their intentions. It cannot be that, until the police know the specific route, they cannot use s12 to prevent the use of a reasonably possible but seriously disruptive route. The power to give directions would not be useable when most needed; and it could always be objected that the police did not know what the route was to be, but had merely believed, however reasonably, that it could take a disruptive route.’

Goldring LJ, Ouseley J
[2013] EWHC 3846 (Admin), (2014) 178 JP 67, [2014] 1 WLR 2984, [2014] WLR(D) 139
Bailii, WLRD
Public Order Act 1986 12(5)
CitedKay v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis HL 26-Nov-2008
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply . .
CitedKay v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 27-Jun-2006
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a ‘Critical Mass’ demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police . .
CitedFlockhart v Robinson 1950
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession ‘is a body of persons moving along a route’ and that, by . .
CitedJukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Jan-2013
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Police

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519993