Category: Crime

Regina v Sanchez: CACD 6 Mar 1996

The defendant had been convicted of an affray when she had lunged at her boyfriend with a knife in a car park.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A ‘person of reasonable firmness’ who must be concerned for an affray offence to be committed, must be a third party, and not the victim of the affray. The trial judge had failed to direct the jury to consider whether a reasonable hypothetical bystander would have feared for his personal safety.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-1996, [1996] Crim LR 572

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – I 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: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87669

The Case of Thomas Burdet, Warwick: 1792

To cast and calculate by magic arts the nativity of the King or heir-apparent in order to find out the time of their death, and in consequence of such enquiries to publish that they would soon die, with a view to alienate the affections of their subjects, was a compassing arid imagining of the death of the King.

Citations:

[1792] EngR 2488, (1792) Cro Car 121, (1792) 79 ER 706 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.360700

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AV: Admn 30 Apr 2009

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 902 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – AR v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 15-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against the refusal of the Home Secretary to vary the control order made against him under the 2005 Act.
Held: The organisation of which the applicant was a member might soon enter into a settlement with the Libyan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.341851

HM Advocate v Cunningham: 1963

Citations:

1963 SLT 345

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Explained – Cardle v Mulrainey HCJ 1992
The defendant drank lager into which a third party had put amphetamine. He then tried to start vehicles belonging to others with the intention of taking them away. He also took some property from one of the vehicles. The sheriff acquitted him. The . .
Cited – Regina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272895

Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd: Admn 21 Dec 2007

The prosecutor appealed dismissal of a charge of receiving a broadcast television programme with intent to avoid payment. The defendant ran a public house. She acquired a card which allowed her to receive transmissions from a Greek satellite broadcasting premier league football matches. The intellectual property rights to such matches in the UK lay with BSkyB alone. BSkyB had captured the visual images and sounds and transmitted them with commentaries. These were then sold on to the Greek company.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The requisite intent to avoid any charge applicable was satisfied in the circumstances. It was wrong to attempt to determine whether a programme included in a broadcasting service is provided from a place in the United Kingdom by reference to Directive 93/83.

Judges:

Pumfrey LJ, Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3091 (Admin), [2008] Bus LR 1454, [2008] ECDR 9, [2008] ACD 30, (2008) 31(3) IPD 31018, [2008] FSR 15, [2008] 1 WLR 1869

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 297(1), Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2498), Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2967, Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27th September 1993 on the co-ordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable re-transmission, Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3rd October 1989 on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hosteleria Asturiana SA (Hoasa). ECJ 3-Feb-2000
Europa The question whether the reception by a hotel establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals and their distribution by cable to the various rooms of that hotel is an act of communication to . .
Cited – Lagardere Active Broadcast ECJ 14-Jul-2005
Europa Copyright and neighbouring rights – Broadcasting of phonograms – Equitable remuneration. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Intellectual Property, Media, European

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.263492

L 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.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Collins J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1843 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Vagrancy 1824 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hayes v Stephenson 1862
A defendant found in a park for the purpose of fornication was not guilty of the offence under the Act because fornication was not a criminal offence. . .
Cited – Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station 1983
The defendant entered the garden of a private house and looked through the windows of the house occupied by the victim. She was terrified. The Justices concluded that the defendant had deliberately frightened the victim, and that that constituted an . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Rex v Goodwin 1944
Humphreys J held that: ‘While it is not necessary that a person should be arrested at the place where it is alleged that he was found about to commit an offence, there is no doubt from the language of the section that it is necessary that he should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.258818

Regina v Broke: 1859

The defendant faced an accusation of having blocked a public right of way. The defendant landowner claimed to have instructed his servants to allow only seafaring men and pilots to use the path and to turn back anyone else, and that this proved that there was no intention to create a public right of way.
Held: Pollock CB said: ‘Even supposing these instructions to have been given and acted on, yet, unless it can be proved that they were communicated to the persons who used the path, and that they did so by virtue thereof, and not of right, their user was a user by the public, and the right of way has been gained, if the user has been continued long enough.’

Judges:

Pollock CB

Citations:

(1859) 1 F and F 514

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Godmanchester Town Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs HL 20-Jun-2007
The house was asked about whether continuous use of an apparent right of way by the public would create a public right of way after 20 years, and also whether a non overt act by a landowner was sufficient to prove his intention not to dedicate the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.253532

Regina v Donnelly: 1970

(New Zealand)

Citations:

[1970] NZLR 980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.183447

Regina v McCoy: 1953

(Rhodesia)

Citations:

1953 (2) SA 4

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.182256

Regina v Clayton and Halsey: CCA 1963

Two experienced police officers in plain clothes had entered a bookshop owned by Clayton in which Halsey was his assistant. The officers had each selected a packet of photographs which formed the subject matter of the substantive charges. In cross-examination they both agreed that they had seen thousands of photographs of a similar character in the course of their work, and that the photographs did not arouse any feeling in them whatsoever. Convictions were quashed on the basis in effect that there was no evidence that the officers were susceptible to any degrading or corrupting influence from the articles sold to them.
Lord Parker CJ said that ‘in the case of the publication of an article by way of sale to a particular person the test of obscenity is whether the effect of the article in question upon that person was such as to tend to deprave or corrupt him.’
He then referred to Barker and to the facts of the case which was before the Court and continued: ‘This Court cannot accept the contention that a photograph may be inherently so obscene that even an experienced or scientific viewer must be susceptible to some corruption from its influence. The degree of inherent obscenity is, of course, very relevant, but it must be related to the susceptibility of the viewer. Further, whilst it is no doubt theoretically possible that the jury could take the view that even a most experienced officer, despite his protestations, was susceptible to the influence of the article yet, bearing in mind the onus and degree of proof in a criminal case, it would we think be unsafe and therefore wrong to leave that question to the jury.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1963] 1 QB 163, [1962] 3 WLR 815, [1962] 3 All ER500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Perrin CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.182197

Pratt v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 21 Jun 2001

Whilst the law clearly allowed prosecutions under the Act after no more than two incidents of harassment, nevertheless, prosecutors should look to the reality of whether the acts complained of did in fact amount to a course of conduct under the Act. In this case, but marginally, they did. Prosecutors should look to the purpose of the Act which was to protect people from suffering alarm and distress.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Forbes J

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-2001, (2001) 165 JP 800

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Patel (Nitin) CACD 11-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction under the 1977 Act.
Held: The judge directing a jury must require a finding that the different acts complained of had a sufficient connection with each other to form a ‘course of conduct’ within the Act. . .
Cited – Banks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.162816

Fanta and Another v Regina: CACD 21 Apr 2021

Appeals from convictions of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of goods (cocaine) contrary to section 170(2) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

Judges:

Lord Justice Fulford VP

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Crim 564

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.662108

Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 1985): HCJ 1986

The Court a claim as to the relevancy of an indictment of perjury.
Held:
Lord Justice General Emslie said: ‘All that is required is that it should be clearly understood that a charge of perjury will not lie unless the evidence alleged to be false was both competent and relevant at the earlier trial either in proof of the libel or in relation to the credibility of the witness’.

Judges:

Lord Justice General Emslie

Citations:

1986 JC 137

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v Coulson HCJ 1-Jun-2015
Note. The accused faced a charge of perjury. In an earlier trial, itself for perjury, the defender (the first defender), acting without legal representation had called the now accused to give evidence as to whether accused, as editor of the News of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547553

Gogitidze And Others v Georgia: ECHR 12 May 2015

ECHR Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Forfeiture of a civil servant’s wrongfully acquired property as part of domestic anti-corruption measures: no violation
Facts – In 2004 the first applicant, a former government minister, was charged with abuse of authority and extortion. The Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic subsequently initiated proceedings for forfeiture of property against him and the remaining applicants, all close relatives of the first applicant, for having wrongfully and inexplicably acquired property. In September 2004 the Ajarian Supreme Court ordered the confiscation of six properties. In January 2005, following an appeal by all four applicants, the Supreme Court of Georgia set aside the confiscation of one property and upheld the remaining confiscation orders. The first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the provisions governing administrative confiscation proceedings. Dismissing that complaint, the Constitutional Court observed that the relevant legislation, which had been introduced in February 2004, served the public interest of intensifying the fight against corruption.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Far from being a purely administrative confiscation, the impugned measure in the instant case was linked to the prior existence of a criminal charge against a public official and thus represented by its nature a civil action in rem aimed at the recovery of assets wrongfully or inexplicably accumulated by public officials and their close entourage.
The forfeiture measure amounted to interference through control of the use of property. That interference was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the fight against corruption in the public service.
As to proportionality, the Court examined whether the procedure for forfeiture was arbitrary. In that connection, it noted that on the basis of internationally acclaimed standards for combatting serious offences entailing unjust enrichment and in the face of alarming levels of corruption in Georgia at all levels, various international bodies, including the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL), had repeatedly advised the Georgian authorities to undertake legislative measures to ensure the confiscation of the proceeds of corruption-related offences. The Georgian authorities had put those instructions into practice by adopting the legislative amendment of February 2004, thus bringing Georgian legislation in line with the relevant international standards. In its earlier case-law in this sphere, the Court had seen no problem in finding confiscation measures proportionate even in the absence of a conviction establishing the guilt of the accused persons and did not require proof beyond ‘reasonable doubt’ of the illicit origins of the property concerned. It had also considered that confiscation measures could be applied not only to persons directly accused of offences but also to close relatives presumed to possess and manage the ill-gotten property informally or otherwise lacking the necessary bona fides. Having regard to all these considerations the Court found, by analogy, that the civil proceedings in rem in the instant case could not be considered arbitrary or to have upset the proportionality test under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In addition, as regards the proceedings before the domestic courts, the applicants had been duly summoned to make written submissions and to take part in the oral hearing and the public prosecutor’s claim had been duly examined in the light of the supporting documents and the applicants’ financial situation. There was nothing in the conduct of the civil proceedings in rem to suggest that the applicants were denied a reasonable opportunity of putting forward their case or that the domestic courts’ findings were tainted with manifest arbitrariness.
In sum, having regard to the Georgian authorities’ wide margin of appreciation in their pursuit of the policy designed to combat corruption in the public service and to the fact that the domestic courts had afforded the applicants a reasonable opportunity of putting their case through adversarial proceedings, the requisite fair balance between the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had not been upset.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Editorial note: The case is interesting in that it makes extensive reference to several international documents and instruments concerning the fight against corruption. The judgment supports the approach adopted by those instruments by reaffirming the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the States in the area of adoption of measures against corruption.

Citations:

36862/05 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 536

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547587

Regina v Salisbury: 9 Oct 1972

Australia – Victoria The court considered the nature of the act required to found an allegation of assault: ‘It may be that the somewhat different wording of section 20 of the English Act has played a part in bringing about the existence of the two lines of authority in England, but, be that as it may, we have come to the conclusion that, although the word ‘inflicts’ . . does not have as wide a meaning as the word ’causes’ . . the word ‘inflicts’ does have a wider meaning than it would have if it were construed so that inflicting grievous bodily harm always involved assaulting the victim. In our opinion, grievous bodily harm may be inflicted . . either where the accused has directly and violently ‘inflicted’ it by assaulting the victim, or where the accused has ‘inflicted’ it by doing something, intentionally, which, though it is not itself a direct application of force to the body of the victim, does directly result in force being applied violently to the body of the victim, so that he suffers grievous bodily harm. Hence, the lesser misdemeanours of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault . . are not necessarily included in the misdemeanour of inflicting grievous bodily harm . .’

Judges:

Young CJ, Nelson, Harris JJ

Citations:

[1976] VR 452, [1976] VicRp 45

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Haystead v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 2-Jun-2000
The defendant had hit a mother in the face as she held the child. The force was sufficient to cause her to drop the child causing injury to the child. He appealed against a conviction for beating the child.
Held: The appeal failed. A battery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547668

Andrea Obonyo v Regina: 1962

East Africa ‘When a person is charged with theft [and the judge told the jury that they could read for ‘theft’, ‘robbery’ because it includes ‘theft’] and, in the alternative, with receiving, and the sole evidence connecting him with the offences 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, he should be convicted either of theft or of receiving according to which is more probable or likely in the circumstances. He is not entitled to be acquitted altogether merely because there may be some doubt as to which of the two offences he has committed. That position is justified because the decision is not between guilt or innocence, but between whether he is guilty of theft or receiving, it having been proved that he is guilty of one or the other.’

Citations:

(1962) EALR 542

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney 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: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547493

Regina v Taylor: CACD 2011

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 1646

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jenkins v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 22-May-2020
Short term possession of stun gun
The appellant challenged the decision of the justices finding him guilty on summary conviction of an offence of possession of a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of electrical current for incapacitation contrary to s. 5(1)(b) and Schedule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651058

Palfreyman, Regina v: CACD 11 Oct 1996

Appeals from conviction of a single count of attempting to obtain services, namely, a voucher for a holiday, from a travel agent by falsely representing that a cheque for pounds 200 was a good and valid order for the payment of that sum.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.465516

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF: Admn 9 Apr 2008

There is no exception to the requirement that a person subject to a non-derogating control order has the right to a fair trial where the secret evidence shows that the subject of the order has no conceivable answer to the claim.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 689 (Admin), Times 25-Apr-2008, [2008] 4 All ER 340

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.266521

HM Advocate v Graham: HCJ 1958

The accused was said to have stabbed the deceased while in the act of breaking into a public house with intent to steal from it. There was evidence that he was attempting to break in and steal when the fatal struggle took place.
Held: There were two separate offences and a separate criminal purpose to which the killing was ancillary: the housebreaking with intent to steal, and the killing which was said to have been done in the course or furtherance of the stealing.The directions to the jury concentrated on the need for them to be satisfied that the accused was in the course of the theft when he did the killing.

Judges:

Lord Sorn

Citations:

1958 SLT 167

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Evon Smith v The Queen PC 14-Nov-2005
PC (Jamaica) The Board was asked whether the offence was a capital murder. The murder was committed in the course of a burglary. The defendant had stood on a ladder and reached in through a window and attacked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.237282

Rex v Phillips: 1811

That a woman had not conceived could not afford a defence to the offence under section II.

Citations:

(1811) 3 Camp 73

Statutes:

Lord Ellenboroughs Act of 1803 II

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.223702

Rex v Scudder: 1828

Citations:

(1828) 1 Mood CC 216

Statutes:

Lord Ellenboroughs Act of 1803

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.223703

Arrowsmith v Jenkins: 1963

Lord Parker CJ said that ‘wilfully’ in the context of an accusation of wilfully obstructing a highway means ‘intentionally as opposed to accidentally, that is, by an exercise of his or her free will’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1963] 2 QB 561

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kent County Council v Upchurch River Valley Golf Course Limited Admn 21-Nov-1997
The defendants had been acquitted of obstructing a public highway across their golf course. The authority appealed.
Held: The obstruction was deliberate. If the defendants wanted to challenge the status of the pathway on the definitive map, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Land

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.198404

Commissioner of Police v Caldwell: HL 19 Mar 1981

The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might be people never crossed his mind. Setting aside his conviction the Court of Appeal had asked: ‘Whether evidence of self-induced intoxication can be relevant to the following questions – (a) Whether the defendant intended to endanger the life of another; and (b) Whether the defendant was reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered, within the meaning of section 1(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.’
Held: (Lord Diplock) It was no less blameworthy for a man whose mind was affected by rage or excitement or drink to fail to give his mind to the risk of damaging property than for a man whose mind was so affected to appreciate that there was a risk of damage to property but not to appreciate the seriousness of the risk or to trust that good luck would prevent the risk occurring: ‘I can see no reason why Parliament when it decided to revise the law as to offences of damage to property should go out of its way to perpetuate fine and impracticable distinctions such as these, between one mental state and another. One would think that the sooner they were got rid of, the better.’ The word ‘reckless’ was not just to be read as the word ‘malicious’. The ordinary use of reckless ‘surely includes not only deciding to ignore a risk of harmful consequences resulting from one’s acts that one has recognised as existing, but also failing to give any thought to whether or not there is any such risk in circumstances where, if any thought were given to the matter, it would be obvious that there was. If one is attaching labels, the latter state of mind is neither more nor less ‘subjective’ than the first. But the label solves nothing. It is a statement of the obvious; mens rea is, by definition, a state of mind of the accused himself at the time he did the physical act that constitutes the actus reus of the offence; it cannot be the mental state of some non-existent hypothetical person.’ and ‘a person charged with an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is ‘reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged’ if (1) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property will be destroyed or damaged and (2) when he does the act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it.’ and ‘It presupposes that if thought were given to the matter by the doer before the act was done, it would have been apparent to him that there was a real risk of its having the relevant harmful consequences; but, granted this, recklessness covers a whole range of states of mind from failing to give any thought at all to whether or not there is any risk of those harmful consequences, to recognising the existence of the risk and nevertheless deciding to ignore it.’
Lord Diplock described the law applicable to gross negligence manslaughter by normal acts such as driving a car: ‘In ordinary usage ‘recklessly’ as descriptive of a physical act such as driving a motor vehicle which can be performed in a variety of different ways, some of them entailing danger and some of them not, refers not only to the state of mind of the doer of the act when he decides to do it but also qualifies the manner in which the act itself is performed. One does not speak of a person acting ‘recklessly’, even though he has given no thought at all to the consequences of his act, unless the act is one that presents a real risk of harmful consequences which anyone acting with reasonable prudence would recognise and give heed to. So the actus reus of the offence under sections 1 and 2 is not simply driving a motor vehicle on a road, but driving it in a manner which in fact creates a real risk of harmful consequences resulting from it.’ and described what might be a standard jury direction: ‘In my view, an appropriate instruction to the jury on what is meant by driving recklessly would be that they must be satisfied of two things:
First, that the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damage to property; and
Second, that in driving in that manner the defendant did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognised that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it.
It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.
If satisfied that an obvious and serious risk was created by the manner of the defendant’s driving, the jury are entitled to infer that he was in one or other of the states of mind required to constitute the offence and will probably do so; but regard must be given to any explanation he gives as to his state of mind which may displace the inference.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill. Lord Wilberforce and Lord Edmund-Davies dissenting

Citations:

[1982] AC 341, [1982] UKHL 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 1(1) 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Briggs (Note) CACD 1977
The defendant caused damage to a car. The appeal turned on the trial judge’s direction on the meaning of ‘reckless’.
Held: The conviction was set aside. The judge had not adequately explained that the test to be applied was that of the . .
Cited – Regina v Stephenson CACD 1979
The defendant sought to sleep in a hollow in a haystack. He lit a fire, to keep warm, which set fire to the stack. He appealed against his conviction under the 1971 Act. He had a long history of schizophrenia and may not have had the same ability to . .
Cited – Regina v Parker (Daryl) CACD 1977
In a temper the defendant broke a telephone by smashing the handset violently down on to the telephone unit.
Held: Applying but modifying Briggs, the defendant had been fully aware of all the circumstances and, if ‘he did not know, as he said . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v G and R CACD 17-Jul-2002
The defendants were children accused of arson being reckless as to the danger of damage. They were not entitled to require the jury to consider as a separate question whether the risk of damage was obvious other than to an ordinary adult.
Overruled – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Applied – Regina v Miller HL 17-Mar-1982
The defendant, a vagrant, fell asleep in an empty house. His lighted cigarette fell onto his mattress, and a fire started. Rather than put it out, he moved to another room. He was accused of arson.
Held: He was guilty. A defendant would be . .
Applied – Elliott v C 1983
A 14-year old girl of low intelligence entered a shed, poured white spirit on the floor and set it alight. The fire destroyed the shed after she left. The allegation was that she was reckless. The justices applied Caldwell but inferred that in his . .
Cited – Regina v Coles CACD 1995
The 15 year old defendant appealed his conviction on the basis of recklessness, challenging, unsuccessfully, the rule in Caldwell.
Held: Because recklessness was to be judged by the standard of the reasonable prudent man, expert evidence of . .
Cited – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Cited – Data Protection Registrar v Amnesty International (British Section) Admn 8-Nov-1994
The defendants had been charged with recklessly holding and then disclosing information about named individuals. It had exchanged a list of potential addressee’s for use in mailing lists with another charity.
Held: Recklessness is defined by . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) CACD 7-Apr-2004
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died.
Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The . .
Cited – Regina v Spratt CACD 2-Jan-1990
The defendant fired his air gun from a window hitting a six year old girl. He admitted a section 47 assault on the basis that he had been unaware of her presence, and had given no thought to any risk.
Held: Failure to give any thought to a . .
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 – Brown v The Queen (Jamaica) PC 13-Apr-2005
A police officer appealed against his conviction for manslaughter after being involved in a road traffic accident. Two were killed. The policemen complained as to the direction given on gross negligence manslaughter.
Held: Adomako could not . .
Cited – Brown v The Queen (Jamaica) PC 13-Apr-2005
A police officer appealed against his conviction for manslaughter after being involved in a road traffic accident. Two were killed. The policemen complained as to the direction given on gross negligence manslaughter.
Held: Adomako could not . .
Cited – Hilda Amoo-Gottfried v Legal Aid Board (No 1 Regional Committee) CA 1-Dec-2000
The claimant appealed an order dismissing her claim for misfeasance in public office by the defendant, for the way in which they had mishandled her membership of duty solicitor rota schemes.
Held: The court discussed the requirements for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.183458

Regina v Sheppard: HL 1981

The section made it an offence for anyone having care of a child to wilfully neglect the child ‘in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.
Held: The section speaks of an act or omission that is ‘likely’ to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. This word is imprecise. It is capable of covering a whole range of possibilities from ‘it’s on the cards’ to ‘it’s more probable than not’, but having regard to the ordinary parent’s lack of skill in diagnosis and to the very serious consequences which may result from failure to provide a child with timely medical attention, it should be understood as excluding only what would fairly be described as highly unlikely.
Lord Diplock: ‘To ‘neglect’ a child is to omit to act, to fail to provide adequately for its needs; and, in the context of section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, its physical needs rather than its spiritual, educational, moral or emotional needs. These are dealt with by other legislation.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1981] AC 394

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – Oakey v Jackson 1914
. .

Cited by:

Doubted – Regina v Wills CACD 1990
The words of a statute must be construed in their context but the interpretation of ‘likely’ [in Sheppard] seems very strained. If it only excludes what is ‘highly unlikely’ it includes what is merely ‘unlikely’; ie, the result is ‘likely’ to occur . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and The Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Limited CA 13-Feb-2003
The defendants considered publication of alleged financial irregularities by the claimant, who sought to restrain publication. The defendants argued that under the Act, prior restraint should not be used unless a later court would be likely to . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) CACD 7-Apr-2004
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died.
Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The . .
Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Cited – L, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 19-Mar-2006
The court considered the duties on the respondent in providing an enhanced criminal record certificate. In one case, the claimant had brought up her son who was made subject to child protection procedures for neglect. Her job involved supervising . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Children

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.182932

Jenkins v Howells: KBD 1949

A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the result of ‘any unavoidable cause’ by reference to the Act. The Divisional Court rejected that contention and held that ‘unavoidable cause’, like sickness, must be in relation to the child and not the parent.

Citations:

[1949] 2 KB 218

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) Admn 20-Oct-2000
The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.179637

In Re Estate of Hall: CA 1914

The rule of forfeiture applied as much to manslaughter as to murder.

Citations:

[1914] P 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Wills and Probate

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650970

Mohamed and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest: Admn 7 May 2020

Claims for judicial review raise, among other issues, an issue about the mental elements of the offence of having control of or managing a house in multiple occupation (‘HMO’) which is required to be licensed but which is not so licensed, contrary to section 72(1) of the Housing Act 2004

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1083 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Housing

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650737

Norwood 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 defendant could establish one of the statutory defences. He argued these should be read down to impose only an evidential burden.
Held: The district judge was justified in his findings as to the poster, that it was clearly racially directed and racially insulting. The positioning of the poster was intended to cause alarm and distress. The offence did not infringe the defendant’s human rights and his behaviour also threatened the rights of others.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld, Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin), Times 30-Jul-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 5(1)(b), Crime and Disorder Act 1998 28 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke and Others QBD 30-Jul-1991
The essentials of the basic section 5 offence require the court to be satisfied as to the accused’s subjective state of mind, namely that he intended that the representation should be, or was aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or . .
Distinguished – Redmond-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, . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Campbell v Spottiswoode 18-Apr-1863
The plaintiff, a dissenting Protestant minister, sought to advance Christianity in China by promoting a newspaper with letters emphasising its importance. The defendant attacked him in a rival newspaper, saying his motive was not to take the gospel . .
Cited – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Dec-2001
The defendant had been convicted of using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress, when she defaced the US flag, and stood on it before a US military officer. She said that the defacing of flags was a common form of protest, . .
Cited – Handyside 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kendall v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jun-2008
Appeal by case stated against conviction for racially aggravated publishing of threatening abusive or insulting materials. The defendant had put up posters at various places with pictures of people convicted of murder and announcing ‘Illegal . .
See Also – Norwood v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
(inadmissible) . .
Cited – Abdul 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – James 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

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.184226

Henderson v Regina: CACD 17 Jun 2010

The court considered appeals against convictions for homicide of infants by carers.
Held: There is no room for trial by expert and in many cases the evidence including the expert evidence, may be insufficient to exclude beyond reasonable doubt an unknown cause of death.

Judges:

Moses, Rafferty, Hedley LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 1269, (2010) 115 BMLR 139, [2010] Fam Law 917, [2010] 2 Cr App R 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Burridge v Regina CACD 2-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his infant son. There had been considerable expert medical evidence called, but only by the prosecution.
Held: The court considered the basis upon which new evidence could be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.416788

D v L and Others: ChD 16 Apr 2003

The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act.
Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to preserve certain classes of offender from capital punishment for killings carried out by reason of diminished responsibility or under provocation. But the 1982 Act recognises in terms that cases of manslaughter do not qualify for relief for that reason alone. The case must be one in which an exception to the rule of public policy requires to be made in order to do justice. Had Parliament intended to disapply the forfeiture rule in all cases of manslaughter involving diminished responsibility, it would have enacted the 1982 Act in a very different form. In the present case Mr M. was killed by someone he had befriended and to whom he had only ever been generous. He was rewarded by violence and abuse, both physical and financial. Mr D.’s mental condition may have robbed him of a measure of responsibility for the actual killing, but it does not remove from him the responsibility for allowing that situation ever to arise.’

Judges:

Patten J

Citations:

[2003] WTLR 687, [2003] EWHC 796 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forfeiture Act 1982 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In the Estate of Cunigunda Crippen deceased 1911
Dr Crippen notoriously survived his wife. Between the date of his conviction for her murder and the carrying out of the death sentence passed on him, Dr Crippen made a will naming Ethel Le Neve as the sole executrix and universal beneficiary. Ethel . .
Cited – In the Estate of Julian Bernard Hall deceased; In re RH CA 1914
The rule against an offender benefitting from his crime applies not just in cases involving a conviction for murder.
Held: The court rejected a suggestion that a distinction should be drawn between cases of murder and manslaughter. Lord . .
Cited – In re Giles Deceased 1972
A woman had killed her husband, but been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on grounds of diminished responsibility. A hospital order was made under the Mental Health Act 1959. It was argued that in these circumstances the forfeiture rule . .
Cited – Gray v Barr ChD 1970
The defendant had used a shotgun to threaten a man and the gun had accidentally gone off and killed him. The issue was whether the defendant could recover in respect of his liability under a policy of insurance. .
Held: The rule of public . .
Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Gray v Barr CA 1971
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .
Cited – Regina v Chief National Insurance Commissioner Ex Parte Connor QBD 1981
The court was asked whether the rule against forfeiture applied so as to disentitle an applicant from receiving a widow’s allowance when she had killed her husband with a knife. She had been held guilty of manslaughter but simply placed on . .
Cited – In Re K, decd ChD 2-Jan-1985
A wife had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband, though she had been subject to long term abuse by him.
Held: Relief was granted to the wife under s.2(2) of the 1982 Act. The forfeiture rule for suicide operates to sever any joint . .
Cited – In Re K (Deceased) CA 1986
The wife who had been subjected to years of abuse shot her violent husband dead in the course of an argument, when a loaded shotgun she had picked up and pointed at him as a threat to deter him from offering her further violence went off . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chadwick v Collinson and Others ChD 24-Sep-2014
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.342132

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF: CA 22 Feb 2008

Appeal by AF from an order refusing an application that a hearing under section 3(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 should be before a judge other than Ouseley J and made two declarations

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 117, [2008] ACD 55, [2008] 1 WLR 2528

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.264660

Deyemi and Another, Regina v: CACD 13 Aug 2007

After a judge’s ruling as to strict liability for the possession of a prohibited weapon, the defendants pleaded guilty. They now appealed against conviction. The judge had sentenced them on the basis that liability for possession was strict.
Held: Parliament had intended to impose a draconian prohibition on the possession of firearms for the obvious social purpose of controlling dangerous weapons

Judges:

Latham LJ, Pitchford JJ, Royce J

Citations:

[2008] 1 Cr App R 25, [2007] EWCA Crim 2060

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zahid v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of expanding ammunition, on the judge ruling that the offence was one of strict liability. . .
Cited – Jenkins v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 22-May-2020
Short term possession of stun gun
The appellant challenged the decision of the justices finding him guilty on summary conviction of an offence of possession of a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of electrical current for incapacitation contrary to s. 5(1)(b) and Schedule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.262164

Re H (Deceased): 1990

The Plaintiff had stabbed his wife to death while acting under a delusion induced by a reaction to a drug that he had been prescribed.
Held: Public policy did not require in every case of the manslaughter of a spouse that the forfeiture rule must be applied. The court should exercise a discretion after careful scrutiny of the facts of each particular case. The court relied on the decision in Gray v Barr, and concluded that had the rule applied it would have exercised its power under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 to modify the rule to reflect the justice of the case. The court should assess the wrongdoer’s culpability, and ask:- ‘Was Mr H guilty of deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence or threats of violence?’
Peter Gibson J said: ‘Mr Jackson [counsel for the claimant] submits that the forfeiture rule does not apply to every case of manslaughter. He pointed out that cases of manslaughter may vary enormously in gravity from the deliberate to the unintentional, and he submitted that in the light of recent authorities the appropriate test was that propounded by Geoffrey Lane J in Gray and Another v Barr [1970] 2 QB 626, 640: has the person been guilty of deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence or threats of violence? . . There is no authority binding on me that compels me to apply that test to a succession case such as the present case. I must choose between following the decision in Re Giles (Deceased) [[1972] Ch 544] and following Vinelott J in Re K (Deceased) [[1985] FLR 558] in applying the Gray v Barr test. I have no hesitation in taking the latter course. The concepts of public policy are not fixed and immutable. The recent cases show that the courts have come to recognise that so varied are the circumstances which may amount to manslaughter that it would not be just to apply the forfeiture rule in every case of proof of manslaughter.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson J

Citations:

[1990] 1 FLR 441

Statutes:

Forfeiture Act 1982 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Gray v Barr CA 1971
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sudershan Kumar Rampal v Surendra Rampal CA 19-Jul-2001
The parties were divorced, but when the husband applied for ancillary relief, the wife petitioned for nullity on the basis that the marriage was bigamous. The husband countered that she had known that his first marriage had only ended after this . .
Cited – J v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
Cited – Mack v Lockwood and Others ChD 19-Jun-2009
The claimant had been convicted of the manslaughter of his wife. He now applied for relief agsinst forfeiture of his share of her estate. He was elderly and had suffered some mental impairment after a stroke, which might have led him to misjudge his . .
Disapproved – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Chadwick v Collinson and Others ChD 24-Sep-2014
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.235263

In the Estate of Cunigunda Crippen deceased: 1911

Dr Crippen notoriously survived his wife. Between the date of his conviction for her murder and the carrying out of the death sentence passed on him, Dr Crippen made a will naming Ethel Le Neve as the sole executrix and universal beneficiary. Ethel Le Neve was passed over on a motion for the grant of an administration to Mrs Crippen’s intestate estate.
Held: Sir Samuel Evans P refused a grant of letters of administration in respect of Mrs Crippen’s estate to the personal representatives of her husband. There were special circumstances justifying this course of action: ‘It is clear that the law is that no person can obtain, or enforce any right resulting to him from his own crime; neither can his representative, claiming under him, obtain or enforce any such right. The human mind revolts at the very idea that any other doctrine could be possible in our system of jurisprudence.’

Judges:

Sir Samuel Evans P

Citations:

[1911] P 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Hardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 1964
The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
Cited – Chadwick v Collinson and Others ChD 24-Sep-2014
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was . .
Cited – D v L and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act.
Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.199527

Regina v Norbury: 1 Mar 1977

(Norwich Crown Court) Between July 1972 and November 1976, 494 women resident in Norfolk reported to the police a total of 605 obscene telephone calls from the defendant. The offence would normally be a summary offence with a maximum of andpound;50.00 fine. He was indicted for causing a public nuisance, an indictable offence for which there was no maximum penalty. His counsel moved to quash the indictment. The judge rejected the argument: ‘It seems to me, dealing with the present indictment, that repetition, over a long period and on a number of occasions of telephone calls of an obscene nature, intending to cause offence and alarm and resulting in such offence and alarm to a large number of Her Majesty’s subjects selected from a telephone directory, or merely by chance dialling, is the very kind of act, and, indeed the very kind of series of acts, which the public has an interest in condemning and has a right to vindicate.’

Judges:

His Honour Judge Beezley

Citations:

(1978) CLR 435

Statutes:

Post Office Act 1969 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Johnson CACD 14-May-1996
The defendant had used public telephones to cause nuisance, annoyance, harassment, alarm and distress. He had made hundreds of obscene telephone calls to at least 13 women, and was convicted of causing a public nuisance. He argued that no call . .
Doubted – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188883

Gray v Barr: CA 1971

A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him by the deceased’s estate as a result of the shooting. It is not every type of crime which operates so as to cause public policy to make the courts reject a claim. The forfeiture rule only applies where the offender is ‘guilty of deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence, or threats of violence.’
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Manslaughter is a crime which varies infinitely in its seriousness. It may come very near to murder or amount to little more than inadvertence.’ and ‘In an action for assault, in awarding damages, the judge or jury can take into account, not only circumstances which go to aggravate damages, but also those which go to mitigate them’
Phillimore LJ confirmed that manslaughter varies from conduct which is almost murder to conduct which is only criminal in the technical sense: ‘It would be foolish to attempt to lay down any general rules. It is wiser I think to confine decision to the facts in this case.’
Salmon LJ said this: ‘Although public policy is rightly regarded as an unruly steed which should be cautiously ridden, I am confident that public policy undoubtedly requires that no one who threatens unlawful violence with a loaded gun should be allowed to enforce a claim for indemnity against any liability he may incur as a result of having so acted. I do not intend to lay down any wider proposition. In particular, I am not deciding that a man who has committed manslaughter would, in any circumstances, be prevented from enforcing a contract of indemnity in respect of any liability he may have incurred for causing death or from inheriting under a will or upon the intestacy of anyone whom he has killed. Manslaughter is a crime which varies infinitely in its seriousness. It may come very near to murder or amount to little more than inadvertence, although in the latter class of case the jury only rarely convicts. H.’s case [1914] P. 1 may seem to be an authority for the proposition that anyone who has committed manslaughter, in any circumstances, is necessarily under the same disability as if he had committed murder. The facts however are not stated in the report and they are of vital importance in order to understand the decision. They have now been ascertained from the record A man named J.H. kept a woman named J.B. and had made a will in her favour. They had had many quarrels. He had promised to marry her but had not done so. On April 13, 1913, she took his revolver and, whilst he was in bed, shot him dead with four or five shots. She was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. It is small wonder that the court held that, on grounds of public policy, she could not take under H.’s will. The only surprising thing about the case is that she was acquitted of murder, apparently for no reason – except, perhaps, that she was defended by Mr Marshall Hall.’

Judges:

Salmon LJ, Lord Denning MR, Phillimore LJ

Citations:

[1971] 2 QB 554

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gray v Barr ChD 1970
The defendant had used a shotgun to threaten a man and the gun had accidentally gone off and killed him. The issue was whether the defendant could recover in respect of his liability under a policy of insurance. .
Held: The rule of public . .

Cited by:

Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Regina v Chief National Insurance Commissioner Ex Parte Connor QBD 1981
The court was asked whether the rule against forfeiture applied so as to disentitle an applicant from receiving a widow’s allowance when she had killed her husband with a knife. She had been held guilty of manslaughter but simply placed on . .
Applied – Re H (Deceased) 1990
The Plaintiff had stabbed his wife to death while acting under a delusion induced by a reaction to a drug that he had been prescribed.
Held: Public policy did not require in every case of the manslaughter of a spouse that the forfeiture rule . .
Cited – J v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
Cited – Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .
Cited – Porter v Zurich Insurance Company QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover . .
Cited – Moore Stephens (A Firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL 30-Jul-2009
The appellants had audited the books of the respondent company, but had failed to identify substantial frauds by an employee of the respondent. The auditors appealed a finding of professional negligence, relying on the maxim ex turpi causa non . .
Cited – Chadwick v Collinson and Others ChD 24-Sep-2014
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was . .
Cited – D v L and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act.
Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to . .
Cited – Murphy v Culhane CA 10-Jun-1976
The widow of the deceased claimed damages from one of the attackers who had been convicted of her husband’s manslaughter. The question was whether, given the conviction, she was entitled to entry of judgment as to liability without trial. The . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.185188

Gray v Barr: ChD 1970

The defendant had used a shotgun to threaten a man and the gun had accidentally gone off and killed him. The issue was whether the defendant could recover in respect of his liability under a policy of insurance. .
Held: The rule of public policy that a criminal should forfeit any interest in a benefit arising from his act only applies where the offender is guilty of violence: ‘However to confine the operation of public policy to cases where there was an actual intent to kill would be to exclude many cases of actual murder: that is to say those cases where the killing was done with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but not to kill. It would further include some cases of manslaughter, for example, manslaughter where the killing was done intentionally but under the stress of provocation, or killing in pursuance of a suicide pact. The logical test, in my judgment, is whether the person seeking the indemnity was guilty of deliberate, intentional and unlawful violence or threats of violence. If he was, and death resulted therefrom, then, however unintended the final death of the victim may have been, the court should not entertain a claim for indemnity.’

Judges:

Geoffrey Lane J

Citations:

[1970] 2 QB 626

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gray v Barr CA 1971
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun.
Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him . .
Cited – Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Re H deceased CA 1991
The Plaintiff had stabbed his wife to death when under the illusion, induced by a reaction to an anti-depressant drug, that she had just committed an act of infidelity. At his trial, a plea to guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished . .
Cited – D v L and Others ChD 16-Apr-2003
The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act.
Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Wills and Probate, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.185186

Cumberbatch v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Nov 2009

In each case the defendants said that police officers arresting them had not been acting in the course of their duty, and that their resistance had been lawful.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Lloyd Jones J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1996 89(2), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.392653

Boreman and Others, Regina v: CACD 19 Jun 2006

Appeals were allowed where the reputation of the forensic expert upon whose evidence the convictions were based had been seriously damaged.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Noye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.270248

Jheeta, Regina v: CACD 11 Jul 2007

The victim complied with the defendant’s instructions, given in text messages where he was posing as a police officer, to the effect that she should have sexual intercourse with him. These offences were committed either side of the coming into force of the 2003 Act; and, in relation to the pre-May 2004 period, they were charged as procurement under section 3 of the 1956 Act and not as rape. The Court of Appeal was not invited to consider the safety of those convictions. As for the post-May 2004 offences, these were charged as rape under the 2003 Act, and the issue was whether the conclusive presumption in section 76(2)(a) applied. It was held that it did not, because there was no deception as to the nature or purpose of the intercourse. The facts were extraordinary. The appellant had pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel who had taken a view of section 76(2)(a) which turned out to be wrong. But that was not the end of the matter because there was clear evidence that the complainant had been pressurised into having sex with the appellant in circumstances which properly called into question whether there was real consent on a number of occasions.
Held: Applying the well-established approach to cases involving pressure or coercion falling short of threats of violence, the convictions were upheld.
Sir Igor Judge P said: ‘Here, the appellant’s purpose was to deceive the complainant into having sexual intercourse with him in order to alleviate or remove the problems which she, having been deceived by him, believed she faced. The result was that she submitted to intercourse because of those extraneous pressures. These submissions broadened from the narrow consideration of section 76(2)(a) of the Act into the wider question of consent as defined in section 74. The appellant’s actions deprived the complainant of her freedom to choose whether or not to have intercourse with him. He pleaded guilty on the basis that at least on some occasions her freedom to choose was constrained by his actions.’

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582, [2007] 2 Cr App R 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.254546

Olugboja, Regina v: CACD 17 Jun 1981

The actus reus of the offence of rape was an act of sexual intercourse to which the complainant did not consent at the time it occurred.

Citations:

[1981] EWCA Crim 2, 73 Cr App R 344, [1982] QB 320

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 1956 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Malone CACD 1-May-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, arguing that the girl, though drunk, had consented.
Held: The Court approved the judge’s direction as follows: ‘She does not claim to have physically resisted nor to have verbally protested. She . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Linekar CACD 21-Oct-1994
L appealed against his conviction for rape. His victim was a woman working as a prostitute. He said that he had simply made off afterwards without payment. He was convicted on the basis that he had procured the act by a false pretence by him that he . .
Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.247940

Rex v Oneby: 1727

Where A and B have a sudden violent quarrel, and later, after tempers should have cooled, A kills B, that is murder. If A says he will revenge himself on B, or will have his blood, that is express malice. The fact of killing is prima facie murder. It is for the defendant to extenuate the fact of killing.

Citations:

(1727) 2 Stra 766, (1727) 1 Barn KB 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Dudley and Stephens QBD 9-Dec-1884
Three survivors of the yacht Mignonette were landed from a German sailing barge at Falmouth in September 1884. On the day they landed all three of them described the circumstances in which the fourth member of the crew, the ship’s boy had been . .
Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.223126