Category: Crime

Regina v Winter: CACD 28 Nov 2007

The defendant appealed his convictions for soliciting murder of his wife. He was said to have asked another to assist in her proposed killing by providing an alibi while a third party committed the act. He said that the law did not include soliciting a person to commit murder as a secondary, as opposed to a principal party.
Held: The section was wide enough to allow the conviction. A murder can be committed by several people, some of whom might play no part in the actual killing.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Underhill LJ, Sir Christopher Holland

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2007

Statutes:

Offences against the Persons Act 1861 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.262985

Regina v Van Hoogstraten: CACD 12 Dec 2003

The prosecution appealed against the refusal of the crown court to remit the case for retrial.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against this ruling because it was not within the ambit of section 29(2) of the 1996 Act. That may be satisfactory because it seemed to be common ground that if an attempt had been made to quash the indictment at arraignment (by means of a request for particulars followed by an application to quash), or if such an attempt had been made after the jury was empanelled, in neither instance would the Crown have any right of appeal. The court was unhappy with this conclusion, but could not avoid it. It could not order a retrial.

Judges:

Mr Justice Forbes Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Curtis

Citations:

[2003] EWCA 3642 Crim, Times 24-Dec-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gunawardena CACD 1990
At the preparatory hearing the defendants sought an order that the trial be stayed as an abuse of process on the grounds of unjustifiable delay. Held : It was refused. ‘In our judgment the words of sections 7, 8 and 9 themselves plainly demonstrate . .
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 5-Feb-1991
The court considered whether to quash a count of theft: ‘The fact that a possible incidental effect of the purposes of the application does find itself within those sub-provisions (a) to (d) is not one of the purposes of those provisions. It is the . .
Cited – Regina v Hedworth CACD 20-Sep-1996
The court allowed amendment of the indictment to reflect the law as demonstrated in Preddy, and at a preparatory hearing application was made to quash the amended indictment on the basis that the charges were not supported by evidence in the . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.188711

Regina v Gordon: CACD 6 Jul 1999

The appellant was one of two convicted of murder. He appealed that conviction. Another youth had first denied any knowledge but then implicated the defendant after being arrested for other offences. The prosecution had been allowed to treat that witness as hostile, with no order to that effect having been made, and that witness had been allowed to refresh his memory by having his written evidence to be put to him. The witness claimed to be dyslexic.
Held: A decision to treat a witness as hostile, and as to whether a witness can refresh his memory, are matters for the discretion of the trial judge, and as such challenges are difficult to sustain. The judge had in fact refused to allow the witness to be treated as hostile, and the prosecutor had not been allowed to cross examine his own witness. The judge had given a firm and clear direction, and the decisions were well within his discretion. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Douglas Brown And Mr Justice Astill

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 1904

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Honeyghon, Sayles CACD 31-Jul-1998
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. There had been what was described as a wall of silence preventing witnesses coming forward. . .
Cited – Regina v South Ribble Magistrates ex parte Cochrane CACD 7-Jun-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.158304

Regina v Cairns: CACD 22 Feb 1999

The defendant had been driving a car. It was surrounded by a group of youths, one of whom threw himself on the bonnet of the car. The defendant, feeling threatened drove off, and the man on the bonnet was injured.
Held: When establishing the defence of duress of circumstance, the defendant needed only to show a reasonable and genuine perception of a threat of serious physical injury, not necessarily that the threat was genuine.

Judges:

Mantell LJ

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999, Times 05-Apr-1999, [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 137, [1999] EWCA Crim 468, [1999] Crim LR 826, [2000] RTR 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .
Approved – Regina v Abdul-Hussain; Regina v Aboud; Regina v Hasan CACD 17-Dec-1998
The law of the defence of duress arising out of threat or circumstances is in need of urgent parliamentary clarification. Appeals were allowed where the defendants hijacked an airplane in order to escape deportation to a hostile country. ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.156868

Regina v Glidewell: CACD 4 May 1999

Forgetfulness might be relevant as a defence on a charge of possessing an offensive weapon. A taxi driver discovered weapons left by a passenger, but forgot having placed them in a glove compartment.
Held: The Appeal was allowed.
Forgetfulness might be relevant as a defence on a charge of possessing an offensive weapon. A taxi driver discovered weapons left by a passenger, but forgot having placed them in a glove compartment.
The defendant was a mini cab driver who had offensive weapons in his vehicle when he was stopped. He said they had been left by a passenger a few days earlier, and that he had forgotten to remove them. When charged with an offence, he contended that he had ‘reasonable excuse’ for having the weapons with him in a public place. The trial judge directed the jury that forgetfulness is not an excuse.
Held: That was a misdirection. Depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, forgetfulness may be relevant to whether or not a defendant has a reasonable excuse for possession of an offensive weapon. The circumstances of the present case, including the fact that it was not the defendant who had introduced the weapons into his car, the fact that the weapons had been in his possession for a comparative short period of time and the fact that he had given evidence as to how busy he was on the relevant night, which bear on the question of his forgetfulness, all as it seems to us, made the relevance of the forgetfulness to the question of whether his excuse of possession was reasonable a matter for the jury.

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 14-May-1999, Gazette 20-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1221, [1999] 163 JP 557

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Crimes Act 1953 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McCalla, Regina v CACD 1988
A cosh had been found in the glove compartment of the appellant’s car. He said he had picked it up a month earlier, had put it away and had forgotten about it.
Held: The court reviewed the authorities on what constituted possession. Once . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jolie v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant had been convicted of having a pointed article with him in a public place. He said that the car he was driving had needed an instrument to operate the lock. At first he had used a knife, but then used scissors, losing the knife in the . .
Cited – Regina v Hargreaves CACD 30-Jul-1999
A cyclist stopped by the police had a knife in an inside pocket. He claimed to have taken it from home and then forgotten about it. He was advised that for the purposes of the section neither forgetfulness nor the fact that he was transporting the . .
Cited – Bayliss, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2003
The defendant was arrested in Tescos. On being searched he was found to have a lock knife. He had placed it in his belt and forgotten about it. He appealed conviction saying it had not been shown that he knew he still had the knife.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.157621

Regina 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.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 1279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Mayling 1963
To establish the offence of outraging public decency, it is not necessary to prove that any particular person was outraged. . .
Cited – Regina v Rowley CACD 1992
The defendant left notes in public lavatories directed to teenage boys. There were two versions of the notes. The notes in themselves were innocuous. They were designed to effect an introduction between Rowley and any boy who might read the note. . .
Cited – Regina v May CACD 1990
The Lord Chief Justice defined the common law offence of outraging public decency: ‘So there must have been proved to have been an act of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature as to amount to an outrage on public decency. It is not necessary to . .
Cited – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.157679

Regina v Weekes: CACD 18 Feb 1999

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as defined by the M’Naghton rules. He had been advised that he might have a defence to the murder charge as such, but had instructed his defence team not to advance it.
Held: It is for the defence to establish, if pleaded, a defence of diminished responsibility. ‘There have been a number of cases in which this court has been faced by the difficulties which arise when a defendant chooses not to call evidence at trial and then wishes to call that evidence on appeal. In general applications to that effect are rejected on the basis that a defendant must put forward his whole case at trial and that it is not in the interests of justice to permit him to put forward his case with different evidence before different tribunals. If in a particular case that results in a conviction which he could have avoided by leading the appropriate evidence at the appropriate time then that is the price he must pay for having chosen not to lead that evidence at the appropriate time. ‘ The Court has the power to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for one of murder, where the defendant’s own mental condition had led him to gainsay counsel’s advice, and to refuse to allow a plea of diminished responsibility to be put forward.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 453

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 2, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dodd CACD 10-Jun-1971
Medical evidence available at the time of the trial of the defendant for murder had been against diminished responsibility but there was said to be fresh evidence in favour of it now available for the appeal.
Held: ‘In the view of this Court, . .
Cited – Regina v Melville CACD 1976
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that evidence later obtained suggested that he was suffering diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was not admitted. It was not sufficiently strong to . .
Cited – Regina v Straw CACD 1-Jun-1987
It was common ground between the psychiatric experts that, at the time when the applicant killed her husband, her responsibility was materially diminished. The prosecution were prepared to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter on this ground. The . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Steven Martin) CACD 23-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder wishing to bring in evidence of his diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was admitted, but the conviction was upheld. The court took the opportunity to give . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Neaven CACD 15-May-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. Unknown to himself and his advisors he suffered schizophrenia at the time of the offence.
Held: The court upheld the paramount and fundamental importance of the principles in favour of one . .
Main Appeal – Regina v Weekes CACD 4-May-1999
The defendant’s appeal against murder had succeeded, and a conviction for manslaughter substituted. The court now asked what should be his sentence.
Held: The medical evidence showed that he suffered a mental illness and it is of a nature and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.156853

Regina v S: CACD 17 Oct 2019

The appeal raises, albeit in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of the case, questions as to the proper meaning and application of s.42(7) of the 2002 Act. The appellant says that the judge misapplied the statutory provisions and that her decision to discharge the Restraint Order was wrong. The respondent, on the other hand, says that the decision to discharge was justified.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1728

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 42(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642609

Tas v Regina (Joint Enterprise): CACD 21 Nov 2018

Appeal from conviction of manslaughter – unknown to appellant co-accused was carrying a weapon.
Held: The need to show intention in a secondary defendant for a conviction of a joint enterprise murder case had taken away the full significance of the knowledge as to a weapon carried by a co-accused. It now worked as evidence as to intention, and no longer a pre-requisite of liability for murder. Even so, the need for knowledge of the weapon was not to be reintroduced through the idea of a supervening ‘overwhelming event’ to convict of manslaughter.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2603, [2019] WLR(D) 4, [2019] 4 WLR 14, [2019] 1 Cr App R 26, [2019] Crim LR 339

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.633135

Jamalov, Regina v: CACD 9 Feb 2010

The defendant appealed from his conviction for using a false identity card. Though he had such a card, he said that it had not been shown that he had intended to use it as required ‘for establishing registrable facts about himself’ The driving licence had his correct name but the wrong data for his birth was shown.
Held: His plea of guilty had been an admission of his intent, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 309, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Identity Cards Act 2006 25(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428650

Windsor and Others v Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 8 Feb 2011

The appellants challenged restraint and receivership orders made against them under the 2002 Act.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Openshaw J, Sir Geoffrey Grigson

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 143, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 204, [2011] 2 Cr App R 7, [2011] WLR (D) 4

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428641

AE (Libya), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 2 Feb 2011

The appellant challenged as unlawful his administrative detention nafter finishing his prison sentence and pending removal to Libya.

Judges:

Stephen Davis J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 154 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Immigration

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428421

Ali and Another v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office: CACD 9 Jul 2008

Appeal from convictions of money laundering

Judges:

Lord Justice Moses

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 146

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Briggs-Price, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The applicant appealed against a confiscation order made on the basis of evidence obtained for and given in a trial that he had profited from the importation of cannabis. He had not faced trial on an associated charge, but had been convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.270596

Regina v Allen: CACD 10 Jul 2001

Appeal against conviction following referral to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Mr Justice Tomlinson, Mr Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.159963

Regina v Dobson: CACD 10 Jul 2001

The loss of video evidence by the prosecutor was not a ground for a stay of the case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Mr Justice Tomlinson, Mr Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1606

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ali, Altaf v Crown Prosecution Service, West Midlands CACD 22-Mar-2007
The defendant was first arrested in 1997, but only re-arrested in 2004. He complained that the delay affected his right to a fair trial within a proper time. The judge accepted this but the trial proceeded, the judge denying a claim of abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.159962

Hutchinson v Newbury Magistrates Court: QBD 9 Oct 2000

The appellant’s conviction for criminal damage to a fence at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston was upheld by the Crown Court; and she appealed by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, maintaining that she had acted in order to halt the production of Trident nuclear warheads at Aldermaston. The threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to customary international law as reflected in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) 110 ILR 161.
Held: No clear rule was established. Had one been found: ‘It is agreed that a rule of international customary law, if it is sufficiently agreed in international law to be such, is translated automatically into English domestic law. The question however is how it should be characterised once it arrives here? Mr Mercer contended, after some hesitation, that the rule that he had formulated was in English law a rule of substantive criminal law, making conduct by the Crown or British Government in contravention of it a criminal act. That is a very striking submission in view of the context of the rule in its terms. I say nothing in passing as to the susceptibility of the Crown to criminal process. It is also in my view impossible to reconcile that contention with the debate Pinochet No 3 which concluded, illuminatingly subject to the specific dissent on this point by Lord Millet, that although state torture had long been an international crime in the highest sense . . . and therefore a crime universally in whatever territory it occurred, it was only with the passing of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 that the English Criminal Courts acquired jurisdiction over ‘international’, that is to say extra-territorial, torture. . . . the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom Governments conduct that is established in English Law by the transformation of the rule of International Law is unlawfulness of a more elusive nature than is to be found in the substantive criminal law. What exactly that nature is was never satisfactorily explained to us, despite the courts efforts to seek elucidation.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWHC QB 61, (2000) ILR 499

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1998 198

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, International

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.135705

Regina v Simcox: CCA 25 Feb 1964

A man who had previously murdered his second wife and had now sought out his third wife, with whom he was in dispute, taking with him a rifle with which he shot her sister when it was her whom he encountered. Some four psychiatrists agreed that he had an abnormality of mind, namely a paranoid personality. Each said that it impaired his self-control, but none was prepared to say that the impairment was substantial; they spoke of ‘moderate’ impairment, or of his finding it ‘harder’ than others to control himself. The judge left the question to the jury in the terms of the section, adding only that they should ask: ‘do we think, looking at it broadly as commonsense people, there was a substantial impairment of his mental responsibility in what he did? If the answer to that is ‘yes’ then you find him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. If the answer to that is ‘no, there may be some impairment but we do not think it was substantial. We do not think it was something which really made any great difference although it may have made it harder to control himself to refrain from crime’, then you would find him guilty as charged.’
Held: Whilst observing that the final sentence needed the previous focus on the word ‘substantial’ in order that it should not be thought that the absence of self-control had to be total, approved this direction.

Citations:

The Times 25 February 1964, [1964] Crim LR 402

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Golds, Regina v SC 30-Nov-2016
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been only convicted of manslaughter, applying the new test for diminished responsibility as provided under the 1957 Act as amended, and particularly whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.631426

Brennan v Regina: CACD 21 Nov 2014

The defendant, then 22 had a history of disturbed childhood, sexual abuse and outpatient mental health treatment together with one instance when he was sectioned following a suicide attempt. On the undisputed psychiatric evidence he suffered from a schizotypal disorder as well as an emotionally unstable personality disorder. He was obsessed with witchcraft and Satanist killings. He was also depressed. He had planned and executed the ritualistic killing of a client whom he had served as a male prostitute. He left notes of what he planned to do, and after killing the man with one or more knives, had scored his back and painted or written on the walls symbols such as a pentagram and references to Satan and to Krishna, before cleaning himself up and going to the police station to report what he had done. He was treated by the police as needing an appropriate adult to attend his interviews, and told that person that he had been having thoughts of killing somebody (apparently anybody) for several weeks. At trial the only issue was newly amended defence of diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘The problem that a case of this kind throws up derives from the fact that there are two relevant but potentially conflicting principles that are brought into play. The first principle is the general principle that in criminal trials cases are decided by juries, not by experts. Indeed experts are permitted by reason of their expertise to express opinions by way of evidence: but cases ultimately fall to be decided by juries, and they decide on the entirety of the evidence. The second principle, however, is that juries must base their conclusions on the evidence. ‘
The intention of the 2009had been to bring closer together the legal and medical interpretations applicable in diminished responsibility cases, and therefore the weight of expert medical evidence was even greater.

Judges:

Davis LJ, King J, Stokes QC Rec Nottingham

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Crim 2387, [2015] Crim LR 290, [2014] WLR(D) 502, [2015] 1 Cr App R 14, [2015] 1 WLR 2060

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 2, Coroners and Justice Act 2009 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lanfear CACD 1968
A jury is not bound uncritically to accept unchallenged expert evidence. . .
Cited – Anderson v The Queen PC 13-Jul-1971
(Jamaica) A appealed his conviction of murder. Juries are not free, on the other hand, uncritically to reject unchallenged expert evidence on a matter calling for scientific expertise. . .
Cited – Regina v Ramchurn CACD 2-Feb-2010
The defendant had planned and executed the killing of his wife’s lover, a cousin, having given him a home. He threatened that he would kill him, and prepared to do so, trying to get keys to gain access to the victim’s home, and when that failed . .
Cited – Regina v Brown CACD 1-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of twenty four years imposed on his convictions for manslaughter and obstructing the coroner. . .
Cited – Regina v Lanfear CACD 1968
A jury is not bound uncritically to accept unchallenged expert evidence. . .
Cited – Golds, Regina v CACD 2-May-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, sayng that the jury had been wrongly directed as to the meaning of ‘substantial impairent when considering the alternative of manslaughter . .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.539454

Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Jan 2013

Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of breaching conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of the route the march should take. They said that they had left the march and were on a new route of their own.
Held: The District Judge was right to find that they had not left the March, and: ‘Those participating in the public procession were entitled to leave it, but they were not entitled to move from the route of the procession whilst they remained as participants in it. I’
The Court said: ‘It is important to note that the conditions imposed pursuant to the power confirmed under section 12(1) are conditions which relate, as the section indicates, to a particular public procession. ‘Public procession’ is defined in section 16 of the Act to mean a procession in a public place. That it relates to a particular public procession is made clear by the identification within section 12(1) of the grounds upon which conditions may be imposed. The circumstances and the route on the basis of which a police officer’s belief of risk must reasonably be founded route relate to a particular public procession.’

Judges:

Moses LJ and Gloster J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 195 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 9-Dec-2013
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.471020

Dowds v Regina: CACzD 22 Feb 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of diminished responsibility given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should have been treated as explaining his loss of self control and amounting to an abnormality of mind.
Held: His appeal failed. The defendant was attempting to circumvent well established common law that voluntary intoxications could not operate as a defence, and that had not been displaced by statute.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Simon, Lang JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 281, [2012] Crim LR 612, [2012] 1 Cr App R 34, [2012] 3 All ER 154, [2012] 1 WLR 2576, [2012] MHLR 153, [2012] WLR(D) 43

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 82, Coroners and Justice Act 2009 52

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Fenton, Regina v 1975
The defendant had shot four people in two different locations. He suffered a number of conditions, including paranoid psychopathy, which raised the possibility of diminished responsibility, although the jury had rejected that defence. He now . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist ECJ 6-Nov-2003
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided . .
Cited – Wood, Regina v (No 1) CACD 20-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he suffered from alcohol dependency syndrome, and that this amounted to a diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal succeeded and and a conviction for manslaughter was . .
Cited – Regina v Gittens CACD 1984
Lord Lane set out the directions to be given to a jury on the defence of diminished responsibility: ‘Where a defendant suffers from an abnormality of mind arising from arrested or retarded development or inherent causes or induced by disease or . .
Cited – Regina v Dietschmann HL 27-Feb-2003
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility
The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility.
Cited – Jaggard v Dickinson QBD 1980
The defendant broke two windows and damaged a curtain in the house of a stranger. She was drunk. She was charged under the 1971 Act, but she raised her honest but drunken and mistaken belief that the house belonged to a friend who would have . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 29-Aug-2014
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.451458

Parvez, Regina v: CACD 7 Dec 2010

Appeal against a conviction of attempted murder and having a firearm with intent in which the focus of the appeal is on the effect of a hostile witness who named the appellant as the assailant and subsequently retracted that identification.

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 3229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.432763

Goring v Regina: CACD 13 Jan 2011

The defendant appealed against his convictions for murder and possession of an offensive weapon, saying that the judge had wrongly rejected his submission that there was no case to answer.

Judges:

Leveson, LJ, Davis, Lloyd Jones JJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina v Jabber CACD 2006
As to the case of Kwan Ping Bong, Moses LJ said: ‘Read literally, Lord Diplock’s dicta might be understood to be saying that an inference was only to be regarded as compelling if all juries, assumed to be composed of those who are reasonable, would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427992

McDonnell, Regina v: CACD 30 Jul 2010

Appeal against convictions for possession of drugs and of a prohibited weapon. He said that a juror had carried out internet research on him during the trial.

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, McCombe J, Gilbert QC HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2352, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 28

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427983

D v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1 Dec 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting a Community Service Officer in the execution of her duties causing her injury. He said she had not been acting in the course of her duties.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 3400 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Reform Act 2002 46(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Crime

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427945