Category: Crime

Nash v Birmingham Crown Court: Admn 18 Feb 2005

The defendant who had had 75 cats in her home with consequences that they had been not well looked after was convicted of animal cruelty. She had been ‘given a conditional discharge’, one of the conditions being that she could not thereafter look after more than two cats at any one time.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 338 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Animals Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Chester Crown Court Admn 17-May-2006
Defendants had been convicted of maltreatment of horses. The crown court had overturned a permanent ban on keeping horses, substituting a limit of keeping 25 horses with a conditional discharge. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: The court had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Crime

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.223493

Veeber v Estonia (No 2): ECHR 21 Jan 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 7-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The complainant alleged that, having been convicted for acts which only later became a crime, his convention rights had been infringed. He had been accused of abusing his position within a company to ensure that substantial sums of tax were not paid. The court had convicted him on the basis that the acts were continuing, and had continued after the law changed.
Held: The article 7 rights were prominent in the rights granted. Under the earlier law, he could not have been convicted of a criminal offence unless he had first been dealt with administratively. He had therefore been dealt with more severely. His rights had been infringed. A ‘continuing offence’ is a type of crime committed over a period of time. Damages were awarded.

Citations:

45771/99, [2003] ECHR 37

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 7

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.178765

Regina v Parnell: 1881

Fitzgerald J said: ‘It may be that the alleged conspirators have never seen each other, and have never corresponded. One may have never heard the name of the other, and yet by the law they may be parties to the same common criminal agreement.’

Judges:

Fitzgerald J

Citations:

(1881) 14 Cox CC 508

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Dicta Approved – Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi CCA 1929
The first count of the indictment alleged that the former police sergeant Goddard and the: ‘two appellants on divers days between the 1st October 1924 and the 24th November 1928 in the County of London, conspired together, and with one Anna Gadda, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.637526

Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi: CCA 1929

The first count of the indictment alleged that the former police sergeant Goddard and the: ‘two appellants on divers days between the 1st October 1924 and the 24th November 1928 in the County of London, conspired together, and with one Anna Gadda, and other persons unknown, to contravene the provisions of the Licensing Acts by the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and to effect a public mischief by obstructing the Metropolitan Police in the execution of their public duty, and by corrupting officers of that force and contriving to secure that they should make to their superior officers false and misleading reports upon matters referred to them in the course of their official duty for investigation, and thereby to prevent the due administration of the law, and to defeat and pervert the course of justice.’
The question asked was whether ‘the acts of the accused were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in common between them’
Held: Lord Hewart, CJ, speaking of the Soho district of London, referred to its relatively small geographical area and said that there were clearly facts upon which a jury could come to the conclusion that the night club proprietors in the district well knew what was happening generally in relation to the police, and that therefore a conspiracy existed.
At common law, the prohibited act of conspiracy is the entry into an unlawful agreement, which need never be implemented. There need not be communication between each conspirator and every other, provided that there be a common design common to each of them all.
Conspiracy is ‘a difficult branch of the law, difficult in itself, and sometimes even more difficult in its application to particular facts or allegations’.
and it is: ‘necessary that the prosecution should establish, not indeed that the individuals were in direct communication with each other, or directly consulting together, but that they entered into an agreement with a common design. Such agreements may be made in various ways. There may be one person, to adopt the metaphor of counsel, round whom the rest revolve. The metaphor is the metaphor of the centre of a circle and the circumference. There may be a conspiracy of another kind, where the metaphor would be rather that of a chain; A communicates with B, B with C, C with D, and so on to the end of the list of conspirators. What has to be ascertained is always the same matter: is it true to say, in the words already quoted, that the acts of the accused were done in pursuance of a criminal purpose held in common between them?’

Judges:

Lord Hewart CJ

Citations:

(1930) 21 Cr App R 94, (1929) 45 TLR 421

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dicta Approved – Regina v Parnell 1881
Fitzgerald J said: ‘It may be that the alleged conspirators have never seen each other, and have never corresponded. One may have never heard the name of the other, and yet by the law they may be parties to the same common criminal agreement.’ . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mehta v Regina CACD 31-Dec-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. His co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator had been acquitted.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. The defence knew that they were going to have to deal with the . .
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.467720

Ali, Hussain, Khan, Bhatti, Regina v: CACD 7 Jun 2005

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to launder money under section 49(2) of the 1994 Act. The appellants said that the effect of the decision in Montila, alongside sections 1(1) and 1(2) of the 1997 Act, was that a person could not be guilty of a conspiracy to commit an offence against section 49(2) or section 93C(2) unless he and another person knew at the time of the agreement that the property was the proceeds of drug trafficking or of other criminal conduct. So a count of conspiracy to commit either of these offences which included the words ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ or even the word ‘suspect’ was bad in law under section 1(1)(a) of the 1977 Act in the light of Montila. And a count in these terms fell foul also of section 1(2) of the 1977 Act in the light of Montila, as that subsection required the defendant and another co-conspirator to intend or know at the time of the agreement that the property was in fact the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct.
Held: The appeals succeeded. As the jury were directed to convict only if they were sure that at least part of the money was in fact the proceeds of drug trafficking, section 1(1)(a) of the 1977 Act was satisfied. But, applying Montila, the substantive offences under section 49(2) and 93C(2) required proof that the defendant was in fact dealing with the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. Section 1(2) of the 1977 Act came in at this stage, and the jury could only convict of conspiracy if the defendant knew that he was dealing with such proceeds. Singh did not survive Montila. An intention to launder illicitly obtained money was not enough. The money must be proved to have been the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct and, as he put it, ‘onto that requirement, section 1(2) of the 1977 Act bites’. The court recognised that its decision was unsatisfactory, having the consequence was that, if it was right, the prosecution had a heavier burden to discharge that it would have in order to prove the substantive offence. But the prosecution accepted that it would not have been open to it to charge each delivery of money separately, given the rule against duplicity in rule 4(2) of the Indictment Rules 1971.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Tugendhat J, Sir Douglas Brown

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 87, [2006] 2 WLR 316,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Cited – Suchedina v Regina; similar CACD 27-Oct-2006
Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226269

Harmer v Regina: CACD 21 Jan 2005

The appellant and a co-defendant were charged with conspiracy to launder property which they had reasonable grounds to suspect was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. The prosecution accepted that they could not establish that the property was the proceeds of crime, and it was not alleged that the defendants knew that it had a criminal origin. The judge did not direct the jury that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the money was in fact the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct, and he was convicted.
Held: The appeal succeeded. May LJ: ‘Mr Kane’s central submission is that the statutory definition of conspiracy comprising section 1(1)(a) of the 1977 Act embraces an agreement whereby the conspirators intend and agree to commit ‘an offence or offences’. Montila decides that converting or transferring property which a defendant has reasonable grounds to suspect represents another person’s proceeds of crime is not an offence, unless the Crown also prove that the property is the proceeds of crime. The Crown, therefore, did not establish in the present case that the appellant was guilty of conspiracy under section 1(1)(a), since they did not establish that the object of the agreement was an offence. In our judgment, this is clearly a correct construction of the subsection.’

Judges:

May LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 1, [2005] Crim LR 482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226243

Brooker v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 Apr 2005

Appeal against conviction for having bladed article, being a blunt butter knife without a point.
Held: The appeal failed. The section made an unqualified reference to a ‘bladed article’. Davies did not establish that only sharp objects were caught.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Steel J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1132 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 13991)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Davies CACD 1998
The court was asked whether a screwdriver fell within the prohibition of section 139(2). It was apparently an ordinary screwdriver with no sharp point, but it had what the trial judge had described as ‘blades positioned on each side of the driving . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226105

Hounsham and Others, Regina v: CACD 26 May 2005

The defendants appealed convictions for having staged motor accidents to support false insurance claims. They said that the insurance companies had contributed to the costs of the investigation by the police.
Held: It might have been most unwise and possibly unlawful for the police to solicit contributions to their costs from the victims of crime, but they had been found to have acted nevertheless in good faith. The conditions for a stay had not been met. The inadvertent admission of evidence as to one defendant’s previous convictions had not prejudiced the jury.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Curtis J, Poole J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 1366, Times 16-Jun-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Regina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .
Cited – Regina v Weaver and Weaver 1967
Where some prejudice to the defendant or some matter which is prejudicial to the defendant has been admitted in evidence through inadvertence, the jury may be discharged, but need not always be according to the circumstances. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225486

Quayle and others v Regina, Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 2004): CACD 27 May 2005

Each defendant appealed against convictions associated variously with the cultivation or possession of cannabis resin. They sought to plead medical necessity. There had been medical recommendations to move cannabis to the list of drugs which might be prescribed by a doctor, but this had been rejected.
Held: The appeals failed. There was no over-arching principle applicable in all cases of necessity. ‘However, there is a recognised defence of duress by threats, to which it is clear that the defence of necessity by circumstances bears a close affinity.’ and ‘The necessitous medical use on an individual basis which is at the root of the defences suggested by all the appellants and Mr Ditchfield is in conflict with the purpose and effect of the legislative scheme. First, no such use is permitted under the present legislation, even on doctor’s prescription, except in the context of the ongoing trials for medical research purposes. Secondly, the defences involve the proposition that it is lawful for unqualified individuals to prescribe cannabis to themselves as patients or to assume the role of unqualified doctors by obtaining it and prescribing and supplying it to other individual ‘patients’. This is contrary not only to the legislative scheme, but also to any recommendation for its change . . .’ The UK legislation on drug misuse was not incompatible with the defendants’ human rights.

Judges:

Mance LJ, Newman J, Fulford J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 1415, Times 22-Jun-2005, [2006] Crim LR 148, (2006) 89 BMLR 169, [2006] 1 All ER 988, [2005] 2 Cr App R 34, [2005] 1 WLR 3642

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 6(1), Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001 (SI No. 2001 No. 3997), Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lockwood CACD 2002
The court heard a second application in person for permission to appeal a conviction for producing cannabis. The defence was necessity. He claimed to use cannabis medicinally to relieve pain. He complained about the judge’s directions on the defence . .
Cited – Regina v Hudson and Taylor CACD 17-Mar-1971
Two teenage girls committed perjury by failing to identify the defendant. When prosecuted they pleaded duress, on the basis that they had been warned by a group, including a man with a reputation for violence, that if they identified the defendant . .
Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Cited – Perka v The Queen 1984
(Canada) The court analysed the defence of necessity. The concept of necessity is used as an excuse for conduct which would otherwise be criminal. The defence arose where, realistically, the individual had no choice, where the action was . .
Cited – Regina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .
Cited – Regina v Rodger, Rose CACD 9-Jul-1997
The two defendants escaped from Parkhurst Prison. On capture they said that as murderers, they had received notices that though they had behaved without criticism in prison, their tarriffs had been increased. They said they felt unable to face . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Cited – Regina v Pommell CACD 16-May-1995
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing a loaded shotgun. He had wished to advance a defence to the effect that on the previous evening he had taken it ‘off a geezer who was going to do some damage with it’ in order to stop him. . .
Cited – Regina v Safi (Ali Ahmed); Regina v Ghayur; Regina v Shah; Regina v Showaib; Regina v Mohammidy; Regina v Shohab; Regina v Ahmadi; Regina v Safi (Mahammad Nasir); Regina v Kazin CACD 6-Jun-2003
The defendants appealed convictions after rejection of their defence of duress. They had hijacked an aeroplane in Afghanistan, and surrendered eventually at Stansted. They said they were acting under duress, believing they had no other way of . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler CACD 28-Sep-2001
Duress as Defence not closely Defined
The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Rex v Bourne 1939
An eminent surgeon openly in a public hospital operated to terminate the pregnancy of a 14 year old girl who had become pregnant in consequence of a violent rape.
Held: The court suggested when summing up that there might be a duty in certain . .
Cited – Regina v Brown CACD 2003
The court head a renewed application in person for leave to appeal a conviction for producing cannabis. The defendant sought to rely on a defence of necessity, saying that cannabis was the only way available to him to control the pain of his . .
Cited – Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
Cited – In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .
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 – McLoughlin v O’Brian HL 6-May-1982
The plaintiff was the mother of a child who died in an horrific accident, in which her husband and two other children were also injured. She was at home at the time of the accident, but went to the hospital immediately when she had heard what had . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v CS CACD 29-Feb-2012
The defendant appealed against the refusal of the judge to allow her defence of necessity in answer to a charge under section 1 of the 1984 Act. She said that it had been necessary to prevent the child being sexually abused.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225330

Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004): CACD 22 Apr 2005

The defendant was accused of having racially abused the complainant by referring to him as an ‘immigrant doctor’ before the assault. The trial judge had held that the word ‘immigrant’ was so wide in its possible application as not to be capable of constituting racial abuse.
Held: Whether such words constituted racial agravation in the particular context was a matter for the jury. It was open to the jury to conclude that the defendant had identified her victim as falling into the following racial groups from his appearance and from his accent. Indian, brown skinned. Each of those was unquestionably a racial group within the definition in section 28(4). The word that she used to display hostility was ‘immigrant’. Whether or not ‘immigrants’ constituted a further racial group within the definition in section 28(4), it was open to the jury to find that by using the word immigrant, the defendant was demonstrating hostility to the victim because he was Indian and brown skinned.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Beatson J, Wakerley J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 889, Times 17-May-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2810, [2005] 2 Cr App R 26

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1972 36, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 28(4), Criminal Justice Act 1972 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Director of Public Prosecutions v M (A Minor) Admn 25-May-2004
There was an argument over payment for food with the Turkish chef of a takeaway kebab shop during the course of which the defendant used the words ‘bloody foreigners’ and pushed the shop window causing it to crack. The justices doubted whether the . .
Application for leave – Attorney General Reference No 4 of 2004; Re Green CACD 4-May-2004
A-G’s appeal from unduly lenient sentence of 4 years for offences of aggravated burglary and two counts of robbery.
Held: Granted. 6 years substituted. . .

Cited by:

Applied – Rogers, Regina v CACD 10-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or to provoke violence. He was driving his motorised scooter and came across three Spanish women. In the course of an . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v HL 28-Feb-2007
The House was asked whether the use of the phrases ‘bloody foreigners’ and ‘get back to your own country’ counted to make a disturbance created by the defendant a racially aggravated crime.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond) ‘The mischiefs . .
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 . .
Cited – Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224919

Regina v Laverty: CACD 1970

Lord Parker CJ said at that the Court should be reluctant to extend the principle in Sullivan further than was necessary. The Crown must always prove its case and one element which will always be required to be proved in these cases is the effect of the dishonest representation upon the mind of the person to whom it is made.

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1970) 54 Cr App R 495

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Sullivan CCA 1945
The court considered the evidence required as to the mind of the victim of a fraud. Humphrys J said: ‘ It is, we think, undoubtedly good law that the question of the inducement acting upon the mind of the person who may be described as the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Lambie HL 25-Jun-1981
The defendant had been requested by her credit card company to return her credit card and not to use it. She used it again before returning it. She was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception from the store, but her appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.471156

Regina v Maynard, Dudley etc: CACD 31 Jul 2002

The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. They alleged that the police record of an interview central to the cases had been falsified.
Held: To allow an appeal the court must conclude that the conviction is unsafe. The evidence at trial was that the record was accurate and contemporaneous, but that now appeared to be impossible. The court can never know the inner minds of the jury. The judge had made the integrity of the interviews central. Appeals allowed to that extent.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell, Holman, Gibbs JJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police, Evidence

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174450

Regina v Zaman: CACD 1 Jul 2002

The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Act, and challenged a direction form the judge that the phrases ‘with a view to’ and ‘with intent to’ meant different things.
Held: The judge’s direction was correct. ‘With a view to’ in this context, meant that the offender contemplated some result, without necessarily wanting or intending it, which might realistically occur.

Judges:

Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Wright and Judge Goddard, QC

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174439

Regina v Dallagher: CACD 25 Jul 2002

The prosecution sought to bring into evidence an ear print. The defendant appealed.
Held: The science of identifying ear prints remained under development, but there was nothing to stop it being admitted where appropriately cautious directions were given by the judge. There was no basis for excluding evidence in respect of marks found at the scene of a crime. In this case however there was fresh evidence as to the reliability of these particular marks, which might have affected the jury’s decision if it had been available at trial. The conviction was quashed, and a new trial ordered.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 21-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kempster, Regina v CACD 7-May-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that evidence of an ear-print expert had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The court rejected an argument based on Coutts. Ear-print evidence can be admitted provided the experts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Evidence

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174356

Regina v Johnstone, etc: CACD 1 Feb 2002

The several defendants appealed convictions for breaches of section 92 of the Act.
Held: The section presumed that a civil infringement of the Trade Mark had taken place. Accordingly any of the defences available to a civil action must be available also against a criminal action. Furthermore there was no conflict between the Act and the Directive.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey, Mr Justice Pumfrey and Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

Times 12-Mar-2002, Gazette 28-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 194

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 89/104/EEC (OJ 1989 L40/5) the Trade Marks Directive, Trade Marks Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Intellectual Property

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.167750

Plinio Galfetti v Regina: CACD 31 Jul 2002

The defendant had been convicted of various offences of violence but then was then to be held in a secure mental hospital. A place was not available, and an order only became available some nine months later, at which time, he argued that the order was no longer appropriate. In the meantime the defendant had also applied to the Mental Health review Tribunal, who had mistakenly decided that there was no longer any need to hold him. The psychiatrists disagreed. He argued that he was now held unlawfully, and in breach of his human rights because of the substantial delay.
Held: Section 38 is to be used to hold a patient for assessment, not to hold him until a place could be found. The Court of Criminal Appeal had to act within its powers under the 1968 Act, but these included the power to make a hospital order. The nature of the earlier orders to delay sentence by the Crown Court were not capable of being appealed. There had been an excessive delay. However the delay affected both defendant and complainant, and the defendant could not simply say that the case could not proceed because of the infringement of his rights. The judge’s order was in accordance with the evidence before him and was correct.

Judges:

Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1916

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) CACD 12-Jul-2001
When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174451

Regina v Wacker: CACD 31 Jul 2002

The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had been driving a lorry into the UK. 58 illegal immigrants died in the rear. He appealed against his conviction for gross negligence manslaughter, saying that because the victims were engaged in the same unlawful enterprise that he was, he owed them no duty of care.
Held: The case of Adomako did not raise the same issues as here, and was not a guide in this case. The law must not hesitate to prevent serious injury or death even when the victims might have consented to or willingly have accepted that risk.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Ouseley, Mr Justice Colman

Citations:

Times 05-Sep-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1944, [2003] QB 1207

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Shulman, Regina v Prentice, Regina v Adomako; Regina v Holloway HL 1-Jul-1994
An anaesthetist failed to observe an operation properly, and did not notice that a tube had become disconnected from a ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died, and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, being guilty of gross . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Willoughby CACD 6-Dec-2004
The Defendant appealed against his conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. He had recruited another man to assist him in burning down his own premises. In the course of the offence an explosion killed the other man. He said he owed him no duty . .
Cited – Evans (Gemma), Regina v CACD 2-Apr-2009
The applicant appealed against her conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. Her half sister had died of a heroin overdose. Instead of calling for assistance when she had complained, the defendant and her mother had put the deceased to bed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174429

Regina v Muhamad: CACD 19 Jul 2002

The appellant had been convicted of an offence under the section in that as a bankrupt, he ‘in the two years before the petition, materially contributed to, or increased the extent of, his insolvency by gambling or by rash and hazardous speculations’. The actus reus – the bankruptcy petition and the bankruptcy to which it gives rise – does not exist and may never come to exist at the time of the gambling or speculations.
Held: Under Article 7 of the ECHR, retrospectivity under section 362(1)(a) did not offend the principle of legal certainty or Article 7 (in relation to which it was held to be proportionate). There is nothing objectionable in principle with strict liability offences under Article 7 which required a different conclusion, than that the offence under section 362(1)(a) is one of strict liability.
Dyson LJ said: The offences where no mental element is specified, for the most part, attract considerably lower maximum sentences than those where a mental element is specified.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson, Mr Justice Silber and Judge Goddard, QC

Citations:

Times 16-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1856, [2003] QB 1031, [2003] 2 WLR 1050

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 362(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gammon v The Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1984
(Hong kong) The court considered the need at common law to show mens rea. A Hong Kong Building Ordinance created offences of strict liability in pursuit of public safety which strict liability was calculated to promote.
Held: Lord Scarman . .
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Not binding – Regina v Salter 1968
. .
Cited – Salabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174710

Barry George v Regina: CACD 29 Jul 2002

There had been an identification parade, but the witness had not made an unqualified identification of the defendant. He now appealed admission of the evidence from ID parade.
Held: Recognising the difficulties in identification evidence, and the dangers identified in Turnbull, with appropriate caution a qualified identification might be admitted, either where it supported other evidence, or where the context explained the limited identification, and was not used to undermine a witness. The judge must take care to balance the prejudice and the value of the evidence before admitting it.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Henriques

Citations:

Times 30-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1923

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .

Cited by:

See Also – George v Regina CACD 15-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of the BBC presenter Jill Dando. He said that the prosecution had relied heavily on the discovery, a year later, of a single particle of firearm discharge residue.
Held: The evidence . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Evidence

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.174353

Lambert, Regina v: CACD 3 Apr 2009

The court considered the test for whether the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent to a prosecution had been obtained, and said: ‘The analysis of the statutory language: . .
there are two questions.
i) When were the proceedings instituted?
ii) If the permission of the Attorney General was not given before the proceedings were instituted, was the plea before venue hearing within the scope of s.25(2)?
(i) When were proceedings instituted?
The appellant was charged by the police on 27 June 2007 and brought before the Court on 28 June 2007. The charge would have been entered onto the Court record on 28 June 2007.
S.25(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides that
‘for the purposes of this Part, proceedings in relation to an offence are instituted . . (c) where a person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant, when he is informed of the particulars of charge.’
The judge took the view that this provision was not directly relevant as the subsection was by its express terms relevant only to Part 1 of the Prosecution of Offences Act and s.25(2) is not in Part 1. It was also argued by the Crown that the phrase ‘the institution or carrying on of proceedings’ in s.25(1) must have a wider meaning than the ordinary meaning of the institution of proceedings and signify something of substance happening in respect of the charge. We can see no warrant in the language for so concluding.
The word ‘institute’ is commonly used to mean commence; that is its ordinary meaning and there is ample authority to support that view. However, as Saville LJ observed in DPP v Cottier [1996] 2 Cr App R 410 at 416, the answer to the question when proceedings are begun or instituted depends on the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the provision . . In the context of the Terrorism Act 2000 it could well be that in the light of s.15(1) (sic) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the ordinary meaning of the term institute, that proceedings were instituted when the appellant was charged. However, there can be no reason for contending, as a matter of language and context, that the time at which proceedings were instituted in respect of the appellant for the offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 was any later than the time at which the appellant was brought to court following the charging and when the charge was entered onto the court register. In any sense of the word, the proceedings must have been instituted when the charge was entered into the court register . .
It follows, therefore, that the proceedings against the appellant were instituted before the Attorney General’s permission was given to enable the Director to consent.
Was the plea before venue hearing within the scope of s.25(2)?
We therefore turn to the second question. The language of s.25 is clear. The purpose is to enable the arrest, charging and remand in custody or bail of a person against whom proceedings may have been commenced without the consent of the Attorney General or Director; it covers action that needs to be taken to apprehend the offender and detain him if there is not time to obtain permission. It does not in our judgment permit anything more to be done. Applying the analysis from Bull, it is clear that the decisions in Elliott and Whale and Lockton would have been the same.
If by reason of a wider reading of s.25(1) as contended by the Crown, something of substance was required to happen in the proceedings, a plea before venue is for the reasons we have already set out a hearing of substance.
Conclusion
The appeal is allowed as the permission of the Attorney General was not obtained before proceedings were instituted. We do not need to decide what consequences our decision has on proceedings begun without consent. In the present case, the Crown Court can reconstitute itself as a Magistrates’ Court and hold a new plea before venue hearing. If the issue arises in other proceedings, it is desirable that the consequences be argued in a case where the decision on the issue will have practical significance.’

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Penry-Davey J, Radford HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 700, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 32, [2010] 1 WLR 898

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – CW and MM, Regina v CACD 22-May-2015
Proceedings had commenced for conspiracy to supply class A Drugs to a person abroad. Prior consent was required of the Attorney-General, but was only obtained after the event. The prosecutor now appealed against a ruling that the proceedings were . .
Cited – Lalchan, Regina v CACD 27-May-2022
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe
Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained.
Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.341835

Williams, Regina v: CACD 25 Jan 2017

Appeal against conviction for rape, saying that the indictment was a nullity

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ, Spencer, Stuart-Smith JJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Crim 281, [2017] 4 WLR 93

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lalchan, Regina v CACD 27-May-2022
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe
Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained.
Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.588225

Welsh (Snr) and 17 Others, Regina v: CACD 15 Sep 2015

Applications for extensions of time for making applications for leave to appeal against conviction

Judges:

Rafferty LJ, Edis J, Rook QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 1516, [2016] 1 Cr App R 9, [2016] 4 WLR 13, [2016] Crim LR 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lalchan, Regina v CACD 27-May-2022
Conviction withoiut required Consent was Unsafe
Whether a conviction for an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General before the proceedings are instituted can stand when no such consent was obtained.
Held: The appellant’s arguments were well-founded and his conviction on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.552368

Ayliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 21 Apr 2005

The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that there was ‘was a strong possibility’ that the activities being carried on at the bases were unlawful, as constituting war crimes and/or aiding and abetting war crimes under sections 51 and 52 of the 2001 Act saying that the activities there amounted to preparations for the prosecution of the war in Iraq, against which the appellants mounted an energetic protest. They sought disclosure of documents relating to the activities, which the District Judge dealing with the cases at first instance refused. They were convicted of the offences with which they were charged.
Held: The appeals failed. A bare assertion by trespassers at military bases that the Government may have aided and abetted a war crime did not raise the issue of that suggested criminality as a defence.
Waller LJ said: ‘It is plain that a prosecutor does not have to rebut every possible illegality. It is enough that he shows that the activity is apparently lawful. It is then for the defendant to raise any issue to the contrary. It was accepted by Mr Mendleson on behalf of the defendants that in order to obtain disclosure in the context of the legality of activities and section 68, the defendants had to raise an issue as to whether or not an offence was being committed. That must mean a specific offence or specific offences by the persons who are engaged in the activities on the land in question. There was nothing put forward by the defendants to raise such an issue.’
and ‘the District Judge was right to rule that the activity of port operations was lawful. He was not required to consider the legality of the operations because –
(a) insofar as the defendants sought to raise crimes of peace or crimes of aggression, they were not justiciable (R v Jones [2005] QB 259).
(b) insofar as the defendants sought to raise war crimes contrary to section 51 of the 2001 Act, the general allegations made by them did not raise any issue requiring disclosure by the prosecution or consideration by the District Judge in connection with the lawfulness of the activity at the port.’

Judges:

Waller LJ and Jack J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 684 (Admin), [2006] QB 227, [2005] 3 All ER 330, [2005] Crim LR 959, [2005] 3 WLR 628

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971 1, International Criminal Court Act 2001 51 52, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68

Citing:

Applied – 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 by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Nero and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 29-Mar-2012
Parties appealed against convictions for aggravated trespass under the 1994 Act arising from trespassing demonstrations. They argued that the lawfulness of the activity being carried out on the land subject to the trespass is an ingredient in the . .
At Admin Court – Ayliffe And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 6-May-2008
The applicants are employees of or volunteers for Greenpeace. They boarded a cargo ship, preventing it continuing its voyage to harbour. They did so because they believed the cargo contained unlicensed animal feed and thus the importation was in . .
At Admin Court – Ayliffe And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Feb-2009
The applicants were all either employees of or volunteers for Greenpeace. They were charged with a number of offences relating to the boarding of a cargo ship. They were acquitted but the trial judge refused to award the applicants their costs in . .
Cited – Richardson and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 5-Feb-2014
The defendants had protested against the activities of a shop, by trespassing. They were said to have committed the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the 1994 Act. They objected in part that this infringed their article 10 right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.224385

Webb v Avon and Somerset Constabulary and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2017

The appellants challenged the interpretation of the 1991 Act, and of the 2015 Order, and in particular whether the power of a court under section 4B of the Act to make a contingent destruction order (‘CDO’) in relation to a dog prohibited under the Act including those of the type known as pit bull terriers where the court considers that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety and other conditions are satisfied.

Judges:

Beatson LJ, Whipple J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 3311 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Crime

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.602599