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

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

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 47

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136992

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

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

Judges:

Hooper J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Citing:

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

Crime, Consumer, Contract

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136924

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

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

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Crime, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928

Swanston v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 1996

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 4(1)

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136862

Hibberd v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Nov 1996

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

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136828

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

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

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136807

Regina v Jobling: CACD 1981

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

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

[1981] Crim LR 625

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.462423

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

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

Judges:

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

Citations:

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

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedRaissi, 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 . .
CitedMcKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
CitedCuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland CA 15-Jul-1997
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
CitedVB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135017

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

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

Judges:

Moses LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 554 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Postal Services Act 2000 83(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459546

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.450154

Cornelius, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2012

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

Judges:

Hughes P QBD

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.452139

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

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

Judges:

Lloyd Jones LJ, Jay J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, International

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568008

Regina v McEvilly: CACD 2008

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510155

Regina v F: CACD 16 Feb 2007

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

Judges:

President QBD, Irwin J, Forbes J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalomon v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 1966
Diplock LJ said: ‘The Convention is one of those public acts of state of Her Majesty’s Government of which Her Majesty’s judges must take judicial notice if it be relevant to the determination of a case before them, if necessary informing themselves . .
CitedKjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedThe United Communist Party of Turkey And Others v Turkey ECHR 30-Jan-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 11; Not necessary to examine Art. 9; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Not necessary to examine Art. 18; Not . .
CitedWang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
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 . .

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248849

Pashmfouroush and Another, Regina v: CACD 1 Sep 2006

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

Judges:

Richards LJ, Collins, Jack JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2330

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 120(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.406583

Regina v Duru: CACD 1974

The defendants were accused of involvement in mortgage frauds perpetrated on a local authority. The advances were made by cheque, and the defendants were charged with obtaining the cheques by deception. The principal question for consideration was whether there was an intention on the part of the defendants to deprive the council of the property.
Held: There was such an intention. Megaw LJ: ‘So far as the cheque itself is concerned, true it is a piece of paper. But it is a piece of paper which changes its character completely once it is paid, because then it receives a rubber stamp on it stating that it has been paid and it ceases to be a thing in action, or at any rate it ceases to be, in its substance, the same thing as it was before: that is, an instrument on which payment falls to be made. It was the intention of the defendants, dishonestly and by deception, not only that the cheques should be made out and handed over, but also that they should be presented and paid, thereby depriving the council of the cheques in their substance as things in action.’

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1974] 1 WLR 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decidedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedRegina v Mitchell CACD 1993
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248439

M and Others, Regina v: CACD 7 Feb 2007

The defendants appealed a ruling by the recorder that electronic storage devices were ‘articles’ within s57. S58 dealt with documents, and section 57 with articles.
Held: Hooper LJ said: ‘There is no practical difference between a book which a person can read (perhaps with help) and a CD which can be read by inserting it into a computer. To submit that the CD is not an article because it can only be read with a computer seems to us farfetched. ‘ However, if that were the case it was submitted that section 58 would be redundant. Parliament could not allow section 58 to be sidestepped by allowing a prosecutor to treat a docment as an article. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 218

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 57 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248848

John M, Regina v: CACD 14 Nov 2003

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

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans, J Cooke J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Crime, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279859

Regina v M (KJ): CACD 2003

In appropriate cases, the court should take account of the fact, if it be such that ‘being unfit to plead, the defendant would have no realistic opportunity of going into the witness box and defend himself, nor to give coherent instructions to his advisers.’

Citations:

[2003] 2 Cr App 322

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNorman, Regina v CACD 31-Jul-2008
The defendant suffered a degenerative disease affecting his mental capacity, and at trial the issue of his fitness to plead arose.
Held: Where the issue of unfitness arose it was necessary for the court to exercise very careful case management . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279808

Javaherifard v Regina; Regina v Miller: CACD 14 Dec 2005

The defendants were arrested after assisting unlawful immigrants transfer from Northern Ireland to Birkenhead.
Held: The sentence should reflect the entire course of conduct. It would have been reasonable to charge these offences as having facilitated being in the UK. The convictions for facilitating entry when they assisted at Birkenhead was overturned.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 3231, Times 20-Jan-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.236597

Regina v Fitzgerald: CACD 5 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction under section 5(2). He had been found with a false passport. He was charged under 5(1), and offered a plea to a charge under 5(2), but the judge refused to add a count. The jury declined to convict and substituted the 5(2) conviction after the trial.
Held: A section 5(1) charge impliedly included an offence under 5(2), but where the evidence might support either charge, courts would be better advised to add them as alternate counts.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Stanley Burton His Honour Judge Fawcus

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 576, Times 17-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5(1) 5(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.179551

Nowell, Regina v: CACD 27 Nov 2002

The appellant appealed her conviction for grievous bodily harm, presenting the evidence of two new witnesses. The new evidence was direct eye witness evidence of self defence.
Held: The new evidence fell within the requirements of the 1968 Act and was admissible on an appeal. The evidence went direct as to the central issues, and the conviction was unsafe. A retrial was not appropriate. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Mr Justice Butterfield, and His Honour Judge Paget QC (acting as a judge of the CACD)

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2616

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1961 20, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(2)(a)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.179664

Regina v Ashton-Rickhardt: CACD 1977

Citations:

(1977) 65 Cr App R 67

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 28(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSalmon and Moore v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Nov-1998
The court considered the burden of proof placed on the prosecution under s28 of the 1971 Act.
Held: ‘Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 28 are both designed to come into play at a stage when the Crown have proved all that they need to prove in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.237682

Hawkes v Director of Public Prosecutions: CACD 2 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed her convictions for assaulting a police officer and obstructing him in the course of his duty. She had acted in an abusive manner, but there had been no violence.
Held: Whilst she might have been arrested on the basis that a breach of the peace might occur, there had to have been some act of violence to allow an arrest on the basis that an actual breach had occurred. On that basis the arrest had been unlawful.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

Times 29-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA 3046 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .
CitedMoran v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2002
The appellant had requested the magistrates to state a case as to why they had ruled against his submission that he had no case to answer. The established rule is that they do not have to give such reasons. He argued that the new Human Rights duties . .

Cited by:

CitedFlegg v Justices of the Peace for the New Forest Local Justice Area Sitting at Lyndhurst Admn 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought judicial review of the refusal by the magistrates to state a case. He was convicted for failing to identify the driver of a motor cycle of which he was a registered keeper which had been caught by a speed camera. Either of two . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.236521

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Jones (Nell): Admn 5 Oct 2005

The Agency appealed against dismissal of its allegation that the defendant had wrongfully withdrawn his tachograph record. He had lifted the top of the tachograph which had the effect if disengaging the marker without actually removing the record sheet.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The section was to be construed purposively. Any action which lifted the record sheet from the stylus could be construed as falling within the word ‘withdraw.’

Judges:

Keene LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2278 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBulmer (HP) Ltd v Bollinger SA CA 1974
The plaintiff complained that the respondent had described its drink ‘Babycham’ as a champagne perry, which it said was a misuse of the appellation ‘champagne’.
Held: The court considered the effect of European legislation on the law of . .
CitedHP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.231177

Dehal v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 27 Sep 2005

The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a notice accusing the temple leader as a hypocrite and a liar. The district judge had found him to be untruthful.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The findings of the court were deficient, giving no reasoning as to what threats to publc order were found.

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2154 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 4A(1), European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedThe Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2) ECHR 26-Nov-1991
Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to . .
CitedRedmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedHammond v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Jan-2004
The defendant, who had since died, had been convicted of a public order offence in that standing in a street he had displayed a range of placards opposing homosexuality. He appealed saying that the finding was an unwarranted infringement of his . .

Cited by:

CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .
CitedBauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass.
Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser . .
CitedJames v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.231225

Lovett v Bussey: Admn 3 Apr 1998

The defendant had blocked up a badger set. He appealed against a finding that he had not used ‘loose soil’. He said that Parliament had not intended to be using the word ‘loose’ in a dictionary definition sense of the word.
Held: ‘Loose soil’, following the four other materials referred to in section 8(5) is properly to be construed ejusdem generis with them. The use of spit sized lumps of clay may not be loose. There was no statutory requirement or implication that they should not become compacted.

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 399, [1998] EWHC Admin 398

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 3 8(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Crime

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138520

Ministere public v Oscar Traen and others: ECJ 12 May 1987

Articles 8 to 12 of Directive 75/442 on waste cover all waste-disposal activities and do not impose any limitation relating to the legal status of the operator or the frequency or purpose of the activities concerned. Article 5 of the directive does not lay down any restrictive criteria concerning the ‘competent … Authorities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organization, authorization and supervision of waste-disposal operations’ which are to be established or designated by the member states and the latter are therefore unrestricted in their choice of such authorities. The permit provided for in article 8 of the directive is issued by those authorities and cannot be replaced by the consent of the owner or occupier of the land where the waste is discharged . An owner or occupier of land, as an operator tipping his own waste on that land, does not need a permit under article 8 but a measure subjecting him to such a requirement may be adopted as one of the necessary measures to be taken by the member states under article 4 of the directive. Subject to the usual limitations on the exercise of a discretionary power, the power enjoyed by the member states regarding organization of the supervision provided for in article 10 of the directive is qualified only by the requirement that the objectives of that directive, namely protection of human health and of the environment, must be complied with. A directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and a provision of a directive may not therefore be relied upon as such against such a person .

Citations:

C-372/85, R-374/85, [1987] EUECJ R-374/85, [1987] ECR 2141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedDerbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Crime, Environment

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134282

Cuns, Regina (on The Application of) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court: Admn 4 Mar 2016

Application for permission to apply for judicial review, heard as a rolled-up hearing with considerable speed in circumstances where the disqualification of the claimant from driving after a conviction in relation to a drink drive offence meant that he wanted an interim suspension of the disqualification. The defendant claimed to have a phobia of needles, and said this was a proper reason for refusing to give a sample of blood.
Held: Refused.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 748 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567931

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v EB: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant had been released on licence after conviction for an offence under the 2000 Act. He was subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure for a year, but now appealed against a rejection of his request for a variation of the conditions.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567872

Moran v Jones: QBD 1911

The court asked what was meant by ‘found’ in the 1824 Act, and whether it meant that, at the time of the arrest, the individual had to have the necessary unlawful purpose. The court decided that that was not necessary, though in many cases that might be the relevant moment because that would be when the individual was found. But ‘found’ can include ‘seen’ or ‘discovered’. If an individual is seen in the relevant place with the necessary purpose, the fact that he is not arrested until later does not prevent the offence having been committed.

Citations:

(1911) 75 JP 411

Statutes:

Vagrancy Act 1824

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedL v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Jul-2007
The defendant, a youth, apealed his conviction under the 1824 Act of being found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose.
Held: No unlawful purpose had been shown and the conviction was quashed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.259200

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey: 29 Jun 1992

(Supreme Court of the USA) The Court discussed the grounds upon which it would depart from precedent and why it would not overrule its equally controversial decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade.
Held: ‘no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it . . . Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable.’

Judges:

Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter J.J

Citations:

(1992) 505 U.S. 833

Links:

LII

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedLewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another PC 12-Sep-2000
(Jamaica) When the Privy Council considered a petition for mercy by a person sentenced to death, it could not revisit the decision, but could look only at the procedural fairness of the system. The system should allow properly for representations, . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622605

Regina v T: 1990

(Crown Court) The defendant had committed an armed robbery which involved stabbing her victim and leaning into the victim’s car to take her bag. The medical evidence supporting this mental state was that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after having been raped three days earlier.
Held: A dissociation stemming from physical trauma was viewed as arising from ‘external’ sources and as such sufficient for the purposes of the defence of automatism.

Citations:

[1990] Crim LR 256

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.553801

Gohil, Regina v: CACD 15 Feb 2018

Re-opening of appeal – prosecution said to have failed to make full and proper disclosure – CACD Powers

Judges:

Gross LJ, William Davis, Garnham JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 140, [2018] 1 WLR 3697, [2018] 1 Cr App R 30, [2018] WLR(D) 105, [2018] Crim LR 669

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.623993

Regina v Alath Construction Ltd: CACD 1990

The defendant company was accused of felling a tree in breach of a tree preservation order. Recorder Zucker QC had ruled held that the prosecution did not have to prove that the tree in question was not dying, or dead or dangerous or creating a nuisance. It was for the defendant to establish one or other of the exemptions in section 60(6) in order to establish a defence to the charge.
Held: The ruling was correct. It was for the prosecution to prove, among other things, that the defendant had felled the tree without the permission of the local authority. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Recorder Zucker QC

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1255

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 60(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
CitedRegina v Edwards 1975
On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ licence, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no licence but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.542702

Regina v Joseph Robert H: CACD 1990

At his first trial, the appellant was charged with several sexual offences. He was acquitted on some and the jury failed to agree on others. His counsel sought to adduce evidence of acquittal on the Counts of indecent assault at the first trial to test the reliability of the complainant’s evidence.
Held: The fact of the acquittal could not demonstrate that the complainant was a liar, otherwise the jury would not have disagreed on the other Counts. The Lord Chief Justice also identified a number of reasons why the acquittals could have occurred in circumstances which would not necessarily have cast any adverse reflection on the reliability of the witness at all. Then he said this: ‘It seems to us that, in a case such as this, the judge has a very difficult exercise to perform. He has to balance the interests of the defendant against the interests of the prosecution and he has to determine, in the light of those considerations, what, in his judgment, would be fair. Because, like so many problems in the criminal trial, it is fairness rather than any remote abstruse legal principle which must guide the judge. Coupled with that fairness, if indeed it is not part of it, is a necessity for the judge to ensure that the jury whom he is assisting do not have their minds clouded by issues which are not the true issues which they have to determine.’

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Rose J and Sir Bernard Caulfield

Citations:

[1990] 90 Crim App R 440

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.441413

Riley v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1990

A police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty by arresting or detaining someone unless that arrest or detention is lawful. Justices are not entitled to infer that a police officer was acting in the course of his duty in carrying out a search pursuant to section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act from his bare, albeit unchallenged assertion in evidence that he was carrying out such a search.
Watkins LJ, gave guidance as to the form in which a case should be stated saying: ‘The Justices must endeavour to ensure in stating a case that, (1) the whole of their findings of fact are contained in one and of course an early paragraph of the case . . ‘

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

(1990) 91 Cr App R 14

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlench v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 5-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty under section 89. He had argued that he had no case to answer. The officers had received an emergency call to the house, but the female caller . .
CitedSykes v Crown Prosecution Service (Manchester) Admn 16-Oct-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, saying that there had been no evidence that at the time of the events, the officer was acting in the lawful execution of his duty. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police, Magistrates

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.425321

Regina v Campbell (Tony): CACD 1991

The defendant appealed his conviction for attempting to rob a sub post office. He had been seen earlier by police lurking in the vicinity wearing a crash helmet and sunglasses. He returned after a short time, without the sunglasses but carrying an imitation gun, and also a threatening note, which he intended to pass over to the cashier as part of a demand for money. He was stopped within a yard of the post office when he was arrested. He had admitted his intention to rob.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The acts completed were still only preparatory to the offence. In directing a jury on attempt it is unnecessary to direct them with reference to the law obtaining before the 1981 Act.
Watkins LJ said: ‘In order to effect a robbery it is equally beyond doubt it would have been quite impossible unless obviously he entered the post office, gone to the counter and made some kind of hostile act -directed, of course, at whoever was behind the counter and in a position to hand him money. A number of acts remained undone and the series of acts which he had already performed – namely, making his way from his home where he commenced to ride his motor cycle on a journey to a place near a post office, dismounting from the cycle walking towards the post office door – were clearly acts which were, in the judgment of this court, indicative of mere preparation even if he was still of a mind to rob the post office, of the commission that is of the offence of robbery. If a person, in circumstances such as this, has not even gained the place where he could be in a position to carry out the offence, it is extremely unlikely that it could ever be said that he had performed an act which would properly be said to be an attempt.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

[1991] 93 Cr App R 350

Statutes:

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMason v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to drive after consuming excess alcohol. On reporting to the police that as he opened the door of his car, he had been threatened with a knife, and his car taken, it was suspected he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.384379

Regina v Gulliver (orse Gullefer / Gullerfer): CACD 1990

The defendant appealed against his conviction of the attempted theft of his stake from a bookmaker at a greyhound racetrack. The dog which the appellant had backed was not doing well. During the race the appellant climbed on to a fence in front of the dogs and waved his hands. He was attempting to distract them. His hope and intention was that the stewards would declare ‘no race’ because of his intervention. If a race was so declared, then bookmakers would be obliged to repay the stakes of those who had bet on the race. In that way he hoped to recover the stake which he would otherwise have lost.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The court rejected the ‘Rubicon’ test and stated that the offence in section 1(1) of the 1981 Act envisaged a ‘midway course’ ie a person can be said to have attempted an offence when he ’embarks on the crime proper’. He had not gone as far as attempting to steal his stake from the bookmaker. He had only done an act preparatory to the offence.
Lord Lane said: ‘It seems to us the words of the 1981 Act seek to steer a midway course. They do not provide, as they might have done, that the Eagleton test [in R v Eagleton [1843-60] All ER Rep 363, [1854] EngR 35 ] . . is to be followed or that, as Lord Diplock suggested, the defendant must have reached a point from which it was impossible for him to retreat before the actus reus is proved.
On the other hand the words give perhaps as clear a guidance as is possible in the circumstances on the point of time at which [Mr Justice] Stephen’s series of acts begins. It begins, in our view, when the merely preparatory acts come to an end and the defendant embarks on the crime proper. When that is will depend on the facts in any particular case.’ and ‘An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted.’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1990] 3 All ER 882

Statutes:

Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v John Eagleton (No 1) 1854
. .

Cited by:

CitedMason v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to drive after consuming excess alcohol. On reporting to the police that as he opened the door of his car, he had been threatened with a knife, and his car taken, it was suspected he had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.384378

Cox v Army Council: PC 1963

The provisions of the English Army Act, are to be applied ‘in diverse circumstances wherever the armed forces of the Crown happen to be, in developed or undeveloped countries, as conquerors or guests, and their purpose is . . Disciplinary.’ Criminal law applies only in respect of acts committed or omissions made within England. Viscount Simons said: ‘apart from those exceptional cases in which specific provision is made in regard to acts committed abroad, the whole body of the criminal law of England deals only with acts committed in England.’ and ‘with rare exceptions the whole body of our criminal law is ‘domestic’ in the sense that it is made for the order and good government of this country and is applicable only to acts done on English soil.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 48, (1962) 46 Cr App R 258

Cited by:

CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.373404

Regina v James Langmead: CCCR 1864

The defendant was indicted and tried at Devon Quarter Sessions on two counts, the first count for stealing and the second count for feloniously receiving a number of sheep, the property of Mr. Glanfield, a neighbouring farmer of the Parish of Belstone, some twenty two miles distance from Exeter. Mr. Glanfield had last seen the sheep on Belstone common about a fortnight before Christmas. On 22nd December Mr. William Smith, a cattle dealer, received a letter from the defendant offering to sell him some sheep. The letter informed Mr. Smith that the defendant would be at Little St. John’s Cross at the King William Inn about a mile away from Exeter. On the evening of 23rd December Mr. Smith met the defendant at the Inn and the defendant sold him a number of sheep, including those belonging to Mr. Glanfield. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the defendant’s counsel submitted to the Court that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury. This submission was not accepted and the jury found the defendant guilty of feloniously receiving the sheep knowing them to be stolen. Following upon that verdicts counsel objected that there was no evidence before the Court to support the second count, and that the jury should have been directed that they could not find him guilty because, so he contended: ‘The evidence proved no more than recent possession by the prisoner after the loss, unaccounted for, and that, although a presumption of guilt might legally be inferred from recent possession, unaccounted for, alone, if the offence of which the jury found the prisoner guilty had been theft, yet that guilt could not be inferred from recent possession, unaccounted for, alone, in considering whether the prisoner was guilty of feloniously receiving the sheep knowing them to have been stolen.’
There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict but at the request of the defendant’s counsel they granted a case on the following question: ‘Whether, upon the whole case, the jury should have been directed that they could not lawfully find the prisoner guilty upon the second count.’ In his submissions to the Court the defendant’s counsel contended that the evidence established that it would have been impossible for either the defendant or his sons to have stolen the sheep and therefore the prisoner should have been acquitted, for recent possession is evidence of stealing only and not of receiving.
Held: This submission was rejected.
Bollock CB said: ‘We are all satisfied that the Chairman could not have withdrawn this case from the consideration of the jury or have directed them that there was no evidence that the prisoner had received the sheep knowing them to have been stolen. Speaking for myself, I may add, that in my opinion, the distinction taken by Mr. Carter between a charge of stealing and one of receiving, with reference to the effect of evidence of recent possession, is not the law of England. If no other person is involved in the transaction forming the subject of the enquiry, and the whole of the case against the prisoner is that he was found in possession of the stolen property, the evidence would, no doubt, point to a case of stealing rather than a case of receiving; but in every case, except, indeed, where the possession is so recent that it is impossible for anyone else to have committed the theft, it becomes a mere question for the jury whether the person found in possession of the stolen property stole it himself or received it from someone else’
Martin B agreed.
Byles J said: ‘If the question was whether the verdict was right, there would be much force in many of Mr. Carter’s observations; but the point we have to decide is whether there was any evidence to go to the jury.’
Blackburn J. in his judgment rejected the submission made by Mr Carter observing: ‘I do not agree . . that recent possession is not as vehement evidence of receiving as of stealing. When it has been shown that the property has been stolen, and has been found recently after its loss in the possession of the prisoner, he is called upon to account for having it, and, on his failing to do so, the jury may very well infer that his possession was dishonest, and that he was either the thief or the receiver according to the circumstances.’
Mellor J concurring, said: ‘It is clear, that, whatever was the mode in which the jury in this case arrived at their verdict, there was evidence from which they might safely have drawn either conclusion.’
In the course of giving their judgments a number of the judges expressed their opinions as to how the jury might have reached their verdict. Pollock C.B., said: ‘If, as I have said, there is no other evidence, the jury will probably consider with reason that the prisoner stole the property; but, if there is other evidence which is consistent either with his having stolen the property, or with his having received it from someone else, it will be for the jury to say which appears to them to be the more probable solution.’
He then observed that although there was some evidence that the accused had stolen the sheep, yet the inference that he had sent his sons to drive the sheep to St. John’s Cross, having received them from someone who had stolen them, appeared to him to be the more cogent, adding: ‘however this may have been, we are all of the opinion that there was evidence to go to the jury’.
Martin B commented: ‘In cases of this nature it often happens that some of the jurors feel doubts, and think they ought not to convict the prisoner of stealing unless someone has actually seen him taking the property, and so they concur in convicting him of receiving, supposing that that is the more lenient view.’
Byles J stated that in his opinion there were three ways which he described, in which the accused might have received the sheep with guilty knowledge. Blackburn J, in analysing the facts, also expressed the view that it was more probable that the sheep had been stolen previously by some other person and driven to some place near Exeter, where they were picked up by the boys. He added: ‘I andpound; that were so, the inference would be irresistible that the person from whom the boys received them was the actual thief. Then, that being so, the father was, no doubt, an accessory before the fact, and there was, therefore, evidence for the jury on which they might convict him of receiving.’
In speculating as to how the jury might have arrived at their verdict, the judges were in no manner suggesting that a judge, in his summing-up, should direct the jury that, where a person is charged with theft and in the alternative with receiving, and the evidence (or the sole evidence) connecting him with the offence is the recent possession of the stolen property, then if the only reasonable inference is that he must have either stolen the property or received it knowing it to be stolen, they should ask themselves which is the more probable offence and convict accordingly. There is no reflection of such a rule in English authorities and Langmead has not been cited in any English judgments for such a proposition. Their Lordships are firmly of the opinion that not only was such a direction quite uncalled for In this case for the reasons already given but that such a direction is wrong in law. It detracts, or may be thought to detract, from the obligation of the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the particular offence, before they enter such a verdict.

Judges:

Bollock CB, Mellor J, Blackburn J, Byles J, Martin B

Citations:

[1864] EngR 47, (1864) Le and Ca 427, (1864) 169 ER 1459

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAttorney General of Hong Kong v Yip Kai Foon PC 7-Dec-1987
High Court of Hong Kong – The prosecutor appealed against a quashing of a conviction on a charge of handling stolen goods. The defendant had been charged with robbery with handling as an alternative provided under statute.
Held: Where there . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.281761

Jeffrey v Black: QBD 1977

The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated from magistrates who had exercised their discretion to exclude evidence of possession of drugs that had been obtained by an illegal search of the accused’s room by the police.
Held: The magistrates had exercised their discretion wrongly in the particular case; but Lord Widgery C.J., while stressing that the occasions on which the discretion ought to be exercised in favour of excluding admissible evidence would be exceptional, nevertheless referred to it as applying to ‘all the evidence tendered by the prosecution’ and described its ambit in the widest terms: ‘If the case is such that not only have the police officers entered without authority but they have been guilty of trickery, or they have misled someone, or they have been oppressive, or they have been unfair, or in other respects they have behaved in a manner which is morally reprehensible, then it is open to the justices to apply their discretion and decline to allow the particular evidence to be let in as part of the trial’.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1977] 3 WLR 895

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.250467

Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1954

B appealed against his conviction for murder. The victim, a prostitute, had taunted the accused, then 18, for his impotence. The accused was in fact impotent.
Held: The jury had properly been directed to consider whether a reasonable man who was not impotent would have reacted in the same way. The House refused to accept that physical or mental infirmity could be regarded as material in considering whether a man had been provoked to homicide, and whether a reasonable man could have lost his self control in the circumstances. The ‘reasonable man’ is a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed.
Though the characteristics of the accused should be taken into account by the jury in considering the gravity of the provocation, the Court should still judge the accused’s conduct by the standard of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused.
Lord Simonds expressed the view that no distinction could be drawn between susceptibility because of temper and susceptibility because of a physical defect which conditions a person’s temper.

Judges:

Lord Simonds

Citations:

[1954] 1 WLR 1119, [1954] 2 All ER 801

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Smith (Morgan James) HL 27-Jul-2000
The defendant had sought to rely upon the defence of provocation. He had suffered serious clinical depression.
Held: When directing a jury on the law of provocation, it was no longer appropriate to direct the jury to disregard any particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.238118

Regina v Chisam: CCA 1963

A defendant’s belief founding a plea of self defence must be both honest and reasonable. A sufficient justification was established if the accused genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that a relative or friend was in imminent danger of injury, even though that belief was based on an honest mistake of fact.

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1963) 47 Cr App R 130

Citing:

CitedRegina v Weston 1879
. .

Cited by:

RejectedBeckford v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1987
(Jamaica) Self defence permits a defendant to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be. ‘If then a genuine belief, albeit without reasonable grounds, is a defence to rape because it negatives the . .
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedRegina v Fennell CACD 1971
A father was accused of assaulting a police constable in order to release his son from custody. He pleaded self defence, saying that he had believed the arrest unlawful.
Held: The defence failed. A defendant seeking to justify an assault, . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Armstrong-Braun Admn 5-Oct-1998
A building site was subject to a requirement to move great crested newts before work could proceed. The defendant, a local councillor interfered to prevent a digger destroying the land until the newts had been moved. He appealed his conviction for . .
CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.219152

Lowery v The Queen: PC 1974

(Victoria) A young girl was sadistically murdered. The two accused, were present and the crime was committed by one or the other, or both. Each brought evidence of the unlikelihood that he could have committed the murder. L emphasised his good character and said that because of fear of K he had been unable to prevent the murder. K said that he had been under the influence of drugs and had been powerless to prevent L from killing the girl. Despite L’s objection, K was allowed to call a psychologist as to their respective personalities and, on that evidence, to invite the jury to conclude that it was less probable that K was the killer. They were both convicted. L unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria on the ground, inter alia, that the psychologist’s evidence ought not to have been admitted.
Held: Only in exceptionl circumstances can expert evidence be admissible as to the likelihood of the defendant’s veracity. The evidence of the psychologist was relevant in support of K’s case to show that his version of the facts was more probable than that put forward by the appellant. Accordingly the Privy Council dismissed the appeal. Evidence is relevant ‘if it tended to show that the version of the facts put forward by one co-accused was more probable than that put forward by the other’. The Board approved a statement as to the law: ‘It is . . established by the highest authorities that in criminal cases the Crown is precluded from leading evidence that does no more than show that the accused has a disposition or propensity or is the sort of person likely to commit the crime charged; .. it is, we think, one thing to say that such evidence is excluded when tendered by the Crown in proof of guilt, but quite another to say that it is excluded when tendered by the accused in disproof of his own guilt. We see no reason of policy or fairness which justifies or requires the exclusion of evidence relevant to prove the innocence of an accused person.’

Judges:

Morris L

Citations:

[1974] AC 85

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
CitedRegina v Thompson and others CACD 1995
The court considered the circumstances under which an accused could call in aid the convictions of a co-defendant:
Held: It was fundamental that it is not normally relevant to enquire into a defendant’s previous character or to ask questions . .
CitedRegina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
CitedHenry, Regina v CACD 29-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for soliciting to murder and conspiracy to murder. An expert’s opinion now described him as of low intelligence and vulnerable to the sort of pressure of which he complained.
Held: The expert evidence had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.189882

Regina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1972

The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency.
Held: There now exists no power in the courts to create new criminal offences. A new criminal offence could only be created by Act of Parliament. The House considered its ability to depart from its own previous decisions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale set out the matters which should be included in the directions to the jury where a defendant faced charges of outraging public decency: ‘It should be emphasised that ‘outrage’, like ‘corrupt,’ is a very strong word. ‘Outraging public decency’ goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people. Moreover the offence is, in my view, concerned with recognised minimum standards of decency, which are likely to vary from time to time.’ It is sufficient for liability that, on an objective assessment, the conduct complained of should cause public offence. Aa jury should be directed that, ‘outraging public decency goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of or even shocking reasonable people.’
Lord Reid said: ‘It was decided by this House in Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 220 that conspiracy to corrupt public morals is a crime known to the law of England. So if the appellants are to succeed on this count, either this House must reverse that decision or there must be sufficient grounds for distinguishing this case. The appellants’ main argument is that we should reconsider that decision; alternatively they submit that it can and should be distinguished.
I dissented in Shaw’s case. On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act . . . I think that however wrong or anomalous the decision may be it must stand and apply to cases reasonably analogous unless or until it is altered by Parliament.’ and ‘if the appellants are to succeed on this count, either this House must reverse that decision or there must be sufficient grounds for distinguishing this case. The appellants’ main argument is that we should reconsider that decision; alternatively they submit that it can and should be distinguished. I dissented in Shaw’s case. On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act . . I think that however wrong or anomalous the decision may be it must stand and apply to cases reasonably analogous unless or until it is altered by Parliament.’ and
‘there is a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full sense.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1973] AC 435, [1972] 2 All ER 898, 56 Cr App R 633

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Re-ConsideredShaw v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 4-May-1961
Offence of Conspiracy to corrupt public morals
The defendant appealed against his convictions for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and for living from the earnings of prostitution. He said that first was not an offence known to common law. After it became unlawful for a prostitute to ply her . .
CitedPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:

CitedRees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .
CitedRegina v Ching Choi CACD 7-May-1999
The defendant appealed his six convictions for outraging public decency. He had used a video camera and mirrors to record images of women using the toilet in a chinese supermarket. . .
CitedRegina v Curran CACD 29-Oct-1998
The defendant sought leave to appeal his convictions for outraging public decency. He had been seen having sex on the bonnet of a car in a car park at Heathrow.
Held: the acts complained of could found a conviction for outraging public . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
CitedGreen, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
CitedDoherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecution v Withers HL 20-Nov-1974
The House was asked to consider whether there existed the crime of a conspiracy to commit a public mischief.
Held: There was no such crime, since it was so undefined as to be unfair to any defendant. Although at common law no clear distinction . .
CitedThe Director of Public Prosecutions v SK Admn 10-Feb-2016
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The defendant had completed somebody else’s community service sentence. The prosecutor said that such an act did affect something ‘in the course of . .
CitedAl Rabbat v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 31-Jul-2017
The claimant appealed against refusal of an application for judicial review in turn of a refusal to allow private prosecutions of Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith in respect of their involvement in the war in Iraq, and the alleged crime of . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.186954

Regina v White: CACD 14 Feb 2001

The court asked whether calling a woman an ‘African bitch’ was capable in law of demonstrating hostility towards the complainant, who came from Sierra Leone, as being a member of a racial group.
Held: The meaning of ‘racial group’ was not so tied down by the Act as to be restricted to dictionary definitions. Accordingly the language was to be given a broad and non-technical meaning. The term ‘African’ could therefore refer to a racial grouping for the purposes of the Act. The Act was not phrased so as to excuse members of a racial group insulting racially another member of the same racial group: ‘. . In our judgment, the word African does describe a ‘racial group’ defined by reference to race. In ordinary speech, the word African denotes a limited group of people regarded as of common stock and regarded as one of the major divisions of humankind having in common distinct physical features. It denotes a person characteristic of the blacks of Africa, to adopt a part of the definition in the dictionary.’ The Court distinguished the terms ‘African’ from ‘South American’: ‘Reference was made to South America in the course of argument and we mention it to make a distinction. Whereas the word African has a racial connotation, the expression South American, in England and Wales, probably does not. The range of physical characteristics in the populations of that continent, and the absence of prominence of any one group, is such that the use of the expression South American does not bring to mind particular racial characteristics. We would not expect there to be a common perception in England and Wales of a South American racial group.’

Judges:

Pill, Pitchford LJJ

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 216, [2001] 1 WLR 1352

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 4, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 31

Cited by:

CitedRogers, Regina v CACD 10-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or to provoke violence. He was driving his motorised scooter and came across three Spanish women. In the course of an . .
CitedRogers, Regina v HL 28-Feb-2007
The House was asked whether the use of the phrases ‘bloody foreigners’ and ‘get back to your own country’ counted to make a disturbance created by the defendant a racially aggravated crime.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond) ‘The mischiefs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88706

Regina v Colohan: CACD 17 May 2001

The defendant appealed against his convictions for harassment. He said that since he suffered from schizophrenia, the test for whether his actions had been reasonable should be relaxed.
Held: The test of whether actions constituted harassment under the Act was an objective one – would a reasonable person think it amounted to harassment? Accordingly the mental condition of the defendant was irrelevant. The mental illness of a defendant was no defence. There was no need to apply to the hypothetical reasonable person the characteristics of the defendant.
Kennedy LJ said:
‘Mr. Butterfield’s principal short submission on behalf of the appellant is that in order to apply this test the hypothetical reasonable person referred to in section 1(2) must be endowed with the relevant characteristics of the accused and in particular with any recognisable mental disorder to which he is subject. In the present case the consequence of the submission, if correct, is that the appellant is to be judged by the standards of the hypothetical reasonable schizophrenic.
Mr. Butterfield’s associated secondary submission is that the jury ought to have been directed that it was open to them when considering the defence provided by subsection (1)(3)(c) to say that the appellant’s conduct was, in the particular circumstances of his illness, a reasonable one. Any construction other than that, say Mr. Butterfield, is simply unfair to an accused with a recognizable mental illness.
The question raised by these submissions is one of the proper construction of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As the first word of that title suggests, this is an Act whose purpose is significantly protective and preventative. The long title is ‘An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.’
As well as making a course of conduct amounting to harassment an offence, the Act by section 3 provides civil remedies by way of damages for a breach of section 1 and by way of injunction to restrain an apprehended breach of it. Further, section 5 enables a criminal court, before whom a defendant has been convicted under section 2, to make a restraining order prohibiting him from doing anything specified. Such a restraining order is to be made for the purpose of protecting from harassment not only the victim of the offence but also any other person specified. As is well-known the Act was passed with the phenomenon of ‘stalking’ particularly, although not exclusively, in mind. The conduct at which the Act is aimed, and from which it seeks to provide protection, is particularly likely to be conduct pursued by those of obsessive or otherwise unusual psychological make-up and very frequently by those suffering from an identifiable mental illness. Schizophrenia is only one such condition which is obviously very likely to give rise to conduct of this sort.
We are satisfied that to give the Act the construction for which Mr. Butterfield contends would be to remove from its protection a very large number of victims and indeed to run the risk of significantly thwarting the purpose of the Act. If such a construction is correct it would prevent the conduct in question from being a breach of section 1 and thus exclude not only suitable punishment for the perpetrator, but also damages, and, more especially, an injunction or restraining order for the protection of the victim. We do not believe that Parliament can have meant the provisions in question to have the meaning fro which Mr. Butterfield contends. Moreover, as it seems to us, if Mr. Butterfield’s submissions were correct then subsection 1(2) would have been inserted unnecessarily into the Act.
We agree accordingly with the learned judge that except in so far as it requires the jury to consider the information actually in the possession of this defendant section 1(2) requires the jury to answer the question whether he ought to have known that what he was doing amounts to harassment by the objective test of what a reasonable person would think. Its words, we are satisfied, are abundantly clear.
As to section 1(3)(c) that, we are satisfied, poses even more clearly an objective test, namely whether the conduct is in the judgment of the jury reasonable. There is no warrant for attaching the word ‘reasonable’ or via the words ‘particular circumstances’ the standards or characteristics of the defendant himself.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ VP, Curtis, Hughes JJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2001

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1(2), 1(3)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHayes v Willoughby CA 13-Dec-2011
Harassment Occurs on the Result, not the Intention
The claimant said that over several years, the respondent had pursued him in many ways challenging his management of a company’s affairs. Complaints had been investigated by the insolvency service and by the police who had discovered nothing to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88418

Regina v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Johnson: HL 10 Feb 1993

The manager of a shop was not necessarily liable for a misleading price indication in the shop. There had been a national price reduction advertisement. A customer came into the shop to try to buy a television under the scheme. The store manager refused. The manager was charged with and convicted of giving misleading information as to price.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Looking at statements made in Parliament on the passing of the Act, it could be seen that employees as such were exempted from liability for statements made by their employers.

Judges:

Lord Griffiths, Lord Emslie, Lord Roskill, Lord Ackner, Lord Lowry

Citations:

Gazette 10-Feb-1993, [1993] WLR 1 HL, [1991] UKHL 11, [1993] AC 583, [1993] All ER 299

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 20(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88271