Category: Crime

Drummond v Regina: CACD 7 Mar 2002

The appellant had been convicted of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol. He said that he had taken alcohol after stopping driving but before being tested. He challenged the weight of the burden of proof ascribed by the statute. The judge had directed the jury that he faced a persuasive burden of establishing that he would not have been over the limit. He said this infringed the assumption of innocence.
Held: Any restriction on the presumption of innocence must be justified. The offence differs from those previously considered in that the test is not as to the intention of the accused, but as to the results of a scientific test. Any inexactness in the scientific test will work in favour of the accused, it is the accused who has done something, by drinking after an accident, to make the scientific test less reliable, and it is within the control of the defendant to say how much he had drunk. The interference with the defendant’s human rights was reasonable and no more than was necessary.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mckinnon

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 527, [2002] RTR 21, [2002] 2 Cr App Rep 25, [2002] Crim LR 666

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3A, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 15, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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, . .
Cited – Attorney General of Hong Kong v Lee Kwong-Kut PC 1993
(Hong Kong) In order to maintain the balance between the individual and the society as a whole, rigid and inflexible standards should not be imposed on the legislature’s attempts to resolve the difficult and intransigent problems with which society . .
Cited – Attorney General of the Caymen Islands and others v Even Wahr-Hansen PC 26-Jun-2000
(Caymen Islands) A memorandum of agreement that proceeds of a trust fund should be paid to ‘any one or more religious, charitable or educational institutions . . or . . operating for the public good’ was not charitable since it the objects were not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chambers Admn 25-Jul-2003
The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of driving with excess alcohol. The defendant had admited driving, but said she had consumed alcohol in the twenty minutes between driving and the police coming to her home. Expert evidence had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic, Human Rights

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.167728

Rex v Steer: 1704

A quantity of carp was stolen from a private pond.
Held: the fish were the property of the owner of the pond. The fish could not swim away from an enclosed pond and thereby become lost.

Citations:

(1704) 6 Modern 183, (1704) 87 ER 939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Animals

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650618

Regina v Townley: 1871

Bovill CJ made it clear that in animals ferae naturae, there was no absolute property. There was only a special or qualified property.

Judges:

Bovill CJ

Citations:

(1871) LR 1 CCR 315

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650619

Regina v Jura: CCA 1954

The defendant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon in public. He was holding an air rifle at a shooting gallery when, on a sudden provocation, he shot and wounded a woman.
Held: he had a reasonable excuse for ‘carrying’ the rifle though not, of course, for using it in that way: ”The long title of the Preventive of Crime Act 1953 is’ An Act to prohibit the carrying of offensive weapons in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The appellant was not carrying this rifle without lawful excuse because he was at a shooting gallery where for the payment of a few pence people can amuse themselves by firing at a target. He was carrying the rifle for that purpose, so he had an obvious excuse for carrying it. It was his use of the rifle which was unlawful, and for which he might be convicted of a felony . . the Offences against the Person Act 1861 provides appropriate punishment. The Act of 1953 is meant to deal with a person who goes out with an offensive weapon . . without any reasonable excuse. ‘

Judges:

Lord Goddard, CJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 QB 503, [1954] 1 All ER 696

Statutes:

Preventive of Crime Act 1953

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Szewczyk, Regina v CACD 22-Oct-2019
The defendant said that he had been threatened in the street and had taken two knives from his attacker. He appealed his conviction saying that the Crown had not shown that he had intended to use the knives offensively.
Held: His appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650539

Ohlson v Hylton: QBD 1975

A carpenter on his way home with the tools of his trade who became involved in a dispute with another man while boarding a tube train. The defendant immediately took from his briefcase a hammer and deliberately struck the other man with it on the head.
Held: The conviction under the 1953 Act was quashed.
Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘In the absence of authority I would hold that an offence under section 1 is not committed where a person arms himself with a weapon for instant attack upon his victim. It seems to me that the section is concerned only with a man who, possessed of a weapon, forms the necessary intent before an occasion to use actual violence has arisen. In other words, it is not the actual use of the weapon with which the section is concerned, but the carrying of the weapon with intent to use it if occasion arises.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 724, [1975] 2 All ER 490

Statutes:

Preventive of Crime Act 1953

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Szewczyk, Regina v CACD 22-Oct-2019
The defendant said that he had been threatened in the street and had taken two knives from his attacker. He appealed his conviction saying that the Crown had not shown that he had intended to use the knives offensively.
Held: His appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650540

Lewis v The State: PC 15 Jun 2011

(Trinidad and Tobago) Appeal from conviction of murder saying that the trial judge should have left to the jury the partial defence of provocation

Judges:

Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson

Citations:

[2011] UKPC 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.440732

Cresswell and Another v Director Of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Nov 2006

The defendants opposed the actions of DEFRA in trapping and then killing badgers. They were accused of criminal damage to the traps. They asserted a lawful excuse in seeking to release the badgers. While a wild animal was alive, there was no absolute property in that animal. There might however be, what was known as a qualified property in the animal in three circumstances.

Judges:

Mr Justice (Paul) Walker, Keene L

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3379 (Admin), 171 JPR 233

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Damage Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Borwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.376260

Decidebloom Ltd (T/A Stoneacre Motor Group) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 10 Dec 2008

The defendant brought a case stated in its defence of allegations under the 1968 Act arising from the sale of a Fiat Punto. It was said to have advertised ‘Drive away a new Fiat Punto for a certain price. The car offered was pre-registered. The only effect was the loss of two month’s warranty.
Held: The fact that no specific car was mentioned did not excuse any misdescription, and ‘there was, in the context of this case, a material difference between describing a vehicle as ‘brand new’ and describing it merely as ‘new’. A pre-registered vehicle could not, in my judgment, properly be described as ‘brand new’. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 3328 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rees v Munday QBD 1974
The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.293948

Regina v Hornbuckle: 1945

The defendant answered the charge of rape by saying that he had been drunk.
Held: Lowe J said: ‘To hold that knowledge that the act of intercourse was occurring sufficiently establishes the intent, [to have intercourse without consent] because the man who knows he is committing the act must intend it, even if prima facie warranted, seems to us to fail to distinguish ‘intent to have intercourse’ from ‘intent to have intercourse without ‘consent of the female’.’

Judges:

Lowe J

Citations:

(1945) VLR 281

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.258678

Regona v Sperotto and Salvietti: 1970

(Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales) The court considered the mental element in the crime of rape: ‘In all crimes at common law a guilty intention is a necessary element and with the crime of rape this intention is to have carnal knowledge of the woman without her consent. In order to convict the accused of the crime of rape and, subject to what is hereinafter said, to establish this intention on his part the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that when the accused had intercourse with the woman either (i) he was aware that she had not consented, or (ii) he realized that she might not be consenting and was determined to have intercourse with her whether she was consenting or not. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime ‘. And
‘Although the fact of the act of intercourse may be admitted by the accused or proved beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury, the accused may negative any intention on his part to have intercourse with the woman regardless of her consent if he holds an honest belief on reasonable grounds in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make his act of intercourse with the woman an innocent one (Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, per Lord Reid). This involves these three concepts, firstly, that he in fact held the belief that the woman was consenting to the act of intercourse, secondly, that he was mistaken in that belief and, thirdly, that he can point objectively to circumstances which provided him with reasonable grounds for his mistake.
It then becomes necesary for the Crown as part of the ultimate onus which rests upon it to negative the existence of such belief, and this beyond reasonable doubt. This the Crown may do by reference to all the material adduced at the trial which tends to show that the belief asserted by the accused was not genuinely held by him or that the grounds upon which he relies for the foundation of his belief are, when examined in the light of all the circumstances, not a reasonable basis for the mistake which he claims to have made.’

Judges:

Herron CJ

Citations:

[1970] 1 NSWR 502

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.258673

Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and S: CA 17 May 2007

The Secretary appealed against the refusal of renewal of a control order. It had been said that the secretary had failed properly to consider on the renewal whether there was sufficient evidence to justify instead a prosecution.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The formal consideration of the possibility of a prosecution was a continuing one, but was not a condition precedent to a renewal of the control order. The secretary had failed to keep the prosecution services properly up to date with associated prosecutions in Belgium, but that information would not have made a difference.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Wall LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 459, Times 01-Jun-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 1, [2007] HRLR 27, [2007] 3 WLR 1, (2007) 151 SJLB 676

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E Admn 16-Feb-2007
The claimant challenged a control order made against him, saying that the respondent had renewed the order despite failing to keep under review the possibility of prosecuting him, and that his mental health had suffered as a result of the order and . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another HL 31-Oct-2007
The applicant, who was subject to a control order, complained that the respondent had failed as required to keep under review the possibility of a prosecution, and had renewed the order without satisfying that requirement.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.252388

Regina v Mitchell: CACD 1993

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 788

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Duru CACD 1974
The defendants were accused of involvement in mortgage frauds perpetrated on a local authority. The advances were made by cheque, and the defendants were charged with obtaining the cheques by deception. The principal question for consideration was . .

Cited by:

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

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.248440

Rex v Jarmain: CCA 1946

The defendant, in robbing him, pointed his cocked pistol at the cashier. He claimed that he was thinking what to do but had no intention of pressing the trigger, but the gun went off and killed her.
Held: Pointing a loaded pistol at a person with your finger on the trigger, in the course of committing a felony, was clearly an act of violence. The trial judge had directed the jury that if they accepted the facts deposed to by the accused they should find him guilty of murder. The jury convicted the accused of murder and the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal: ‘The judge was no more under a duty to direct the jury that if the pressing of the trigger was inadvertent the killing was manslaughter, than was the judge in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard [1920] AC 479 under a duty to direct the jury that if the pressure exerted by the appellant in that case voluntarily was only so much as necessary to silence the child and the extra pressure which throttled her was inadvertent and accidental, that the accused there was guilty of manslaughter. We think that the object and scope of this branch of the law is at least this, that he who uses violent measures in the commission of a felony involving personal violence does so at his own risk, and is guilty of murder if those violent measures result even inadvertently in the death of the victim. For this purpose the use of a loaded firearm, in order to frighten the person victimised into submission is a violent measure.’

Judges:

Wrottesley J

Citations:

[1946] 1 KB 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard HL 1920
The accused raped a girl aged thirteen whilst he was drunk. He placed his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming, but without any intention of injuring her. He caused her death by suffocation, and was convicted of murder. It was argued on his . .

Cited by:

Cited – Moses v The State PC 29-Jul-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been convicted under the felony murder rule, where if a victim dies in the course of the defendant committing a felony, the defendant is guilty of murder.
Held: The distinction between felony and murder . .
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Cited – Foster and Another v The Queen PC 23-Jan-2007
(Barbados) The appellants had been convicted under the felony murder rule, before its abolition in Barbados in 1994. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.188590

H, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 Apr 2003

Appeal from conviction of an offence of escape from lawful custody contrary to common law. The central issue in the case is whether at material time when the appellant admittedly absconded he had escaped from lawful custody. The appellant was aged 15 and was remanded, but no secure accommodation was immediately available. Though asked to wait, he absconded.
Held: ‘In order to determine whether an order made under section 23 of the 1969 Act was custodial in nature which was a question of fact it was necessary to concentrate on the moment when it was alleged that the defendant absconded. In the instant case the justices had remanded him to local authority accommodation under section 23 without attaching conditions and that sanction gave power to the local authority to detain the defendant. He had been told not to move by the youth offending team member so that it was unrealistic to suggest he did not know he was being detained and that he was not entitled to simply run off. In those circumstances there was ample evidence upon which the justice could have concluded that his immediate freedom of movement was under the direct control of the youth team member and that by absconding he was escaping from her custody.’

Judges:

Gage J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 878 (Admin), (2003) 167 JP 486, [2003] Crim LR 560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dhillon, Regina v CACD 23-Nov-2005
The defendant had been arrested and then taken to hospital for treatment. On completion of his treatment, he could not find the constable, so went home. He now appealed from conviction of escape contrary to common law.
Held: The prosecution . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.185030

Regina on the Application of Rowley v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 4 Apr 2003

The applicant sought to challenge a decision not to prosecute a third party following the death of her son. He had been in care, having multiple disabilities, including epilepsy. He drowned whilst in a bath. It had been recognised that he needed constant supervision. She alleged gross negligence.
Held: There was no single mind in the local authority which could be identified as responsible, and therefore a prosecution of that authority would fail. The nurse in question had been told she would not be charged, and a prosecution now would risk being an abuse of process (Beedie)

Judges:

Mr Justice Hooper Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 693 (Admin)

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 – Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 22-Apr-1937
The defendant was accused of manslaughter in a road traffic case.
Held: The House sought a simple definition of manslaughter which would be applicable for road traffic cases. Lord Atkin said: ‘My Lords, of all crimes manslaughter appears to . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Jones CA 2000
A company Managing Director had arranged for a dockside crane to be adapted, so that with the jaws of the grab bucket open bags could be attached to hooks fitted within the bucket. Jones was in the hold of a ship loading bags onto the hooks when the . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999) CACD 29-Feb-2000
A conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence did not require proof of a defendant’s state of mind. Nevertheless such evidence might well be useful in other ways. A body corporate could be guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, but only if . .
Cited – Regina v Shulman, Regina v Prentice, Regina v Adomako and Regina v Holloway CACD 21-May-1993
A patient had been injected with the wrong medicine, and died as a result.
Held: The ingredients of the offence of involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty are the existence and breach of a duty, which had caused death and gross negligence . .
Cited – Regina v Beedie CACD 11-Mar-1997
Stay for Extended Autrefois Convict
The plea of autrefois convict applies only if the legal substance of the charges is same but the judge has a discretion. The plea is not limited to Connelly v DPP definitions, but is still narrow.
A 19-year-old girl died of carbon monoxide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.180587

Regina v Robinson: CACD 8 Nov 2002

The defendant appealed his conviction on the ground that a police informant had been a solicitor’s clerk.
Held: Appeal dismissed, but the use of members of the legal profession as informants, must always be dangerous, and capable of undermining the interests of justice. It is necessary for suspects to be able to seek legal advice, and acting as an informant would be a breach by the solicitor or his clerk of his duty to his client, and also a breach by the police of the rights of a citizen. No comment was made as to the particular use of an informant in this case. The judge prepared questionnaires designed to ascertain whether any of the jurors had written an anonymous letter sent to him by post.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, The Honourable Mr Justice Keith, Sir Richard Tucker

Citations:

Times 13-Nov-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2489

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.178116

Regina v Robinson: CACD 3 Feb 2000

Otton LJ said as to whether a defendant continued to be involved in a joint enterprise: ‘it can only be in exceptional circumstances that a person can withdraw from a crime he has initiated. Similarly in those rare circumstances communication of withdrawal must be given in order to give the principal offenders the opportunity to desist rather than complete the crime. This must be so even in situations of spontaneous violence unless it is not practicable or reasonable so to communicate as in the exceptional circumstances pertaining in Mitchell where the accused threw down his weapon and moved away before the final and fatal blows were inflicted.’

Judges:

Otton LJ, Owen J, Sir Rhys Davies QC

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Crim 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Micthell and King CACD 1988
The court considered whether the defendants had continued to be involved in a criminal action where they were originally involved, but claimed to have ceased involvement.
Held: In considering whether a person had withdrawn, there must usually . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell and Another, Regina v CACD 4-Nov-2008
The appellant challenged their convictions as ancillary parties to a murder, particularly as to the joint enterprise direction. There had been a scuffle outside a pub. The appellant went away with others to a nearby house, and returned with them . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.158658

Regina v Jenkins and Another: CACD 14 Feb 2002

The decision in Smith (Morgan) does not prevent use of the expression ‘the reasonable man’ in the judge’s summing-up, in Weller, when considering how a jury should be directed on provocation, the court plainly regarded the relevant question as being ‘whether the defendant should reasonably have controlled himself’. The judge had also correctly identified the reasoning stages in finding a co-defendant guilty of murder as a secondary party following Gamble.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Hallett Dbe and Mr Justice Davis

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 749, 2000/06760/Z4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Smith (Morgan James) HL 27-Jul-2000
The defendant had sought to rely upon the defence of provocation. He had suffered serious clinical depression.
Held: When directing a jury on the law of provocation, it was no longer appropriate to direct the jury to disregard any particular . .
Cited – Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen PC 21-Jun-1984
The appellant and co-accused were charged with murder. They said they had gone to meet the deceased to collect a debt, but had been attacked with a knife by the deceased. Two of the three had knives and knew of the other knife.
Held: All were . .
Cited – Regina v Gamble 1989
Four members of the Ulster Volunteer Force had combined to inflict punishment on an allegedly delinquent member of the organisation. The punishment was to consist of knee-capping (the firing of a bullet or bullets into a knee or other joint, so as . .
Cited – Regina v Powell and Davies 1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Weller, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that provocation should have been found. The issue was whether or not, in the course of his summing-up, the trial judge should have left, and if so whether he had left, to the jury the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.169827

Regina v Paul Alexander Cleeland: CACD 13 Feb 2002

The applicant appealed a conviction from 1973 for murder. The essential question was as to whether the court on an appeal was to apply the standards as at the date of the trial, or at the date of the appeal.
Held: Following Pendleton, the sole criterion is what the appeal court felt about the safety of the conviction. If evidence then relied upon might now have been excluded, the test was to ask whether the conviction might have been entered without that evidence. The several grounds of appeal were not substantiated. Though there was some criticism of an expert’s evidence, the appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Mr Justice Wright, And, Mr Justice Penry-Davey

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 293

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 95, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – 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

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.167638

Szewczyk, Regina v: CACD 22 Oct 2019

The defendant said that he had been threatened in the street and had taken two knives from his attacker. He appealed his conviction saying that the Crown had not shown that he had intended to use the knives offensively.
Held: His appeal failed. The 1953 Act applied to any object including items not in themselves offensive, and the later Act dealt with bladed articles only, and therefore the construction of the earlier Act could not be carried through.

Judges:

Irwin LJ, Andrews J, Judge Aubrey QC

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1811, [2020] 1 WLR 492, [2019] WLR(D) 665

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1(1), Criminal Justice Act 1988 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Jura CCA 1954
The defendant was charged with possession of an offensive weapon in public. He was holding an air rifle at a shooting gallery when, on a sudden provocation, he shot and wounded a woman.
Held: he had a reasonable excuse for ‘carrying’ the rifle . .
Cited – Ohlson v Hylton QBD 1975
A carpenter on his way home with the tools of his trade who became involved in a dispute with another man while boarding a tube train. The defendant immediately took from his briefcase a hammer and deliberately struck the other man with it on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650534

Paul Alexander Macklin v Her Majesty’sAdvocate: HCJ 11 Sep 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction, complaining that the prosecution had failed to disclose before trial, items of evidence pointing to others as possibly responsible.

Judges:

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, Lord Hodge, Lord Wheatley

Citations:

[2013] ScotHC HCJAC – 80

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968 17(2) 17(5)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.516524

Bett, Regina v: CACD 16 Oct 1998

Whether on a charge of permitting premises to be used for supplying a controlled drug it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant not only knew that the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug was taking place but also the nature of the particular drug involved.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 2932, [1999] 1 Cr App R 361, [1999] 1 WLR 2109

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.465041

Regina v Brown: 15 Jul 1841

(Bedford Assizes – (Crown Side)) Constable Herbert complained that the defendant had not assisted him when called on to do so when he tried to halt a riot.
Held: Baron Alderson said: ‘The offence imputed to the defendant consists in this – that Herbert being a constable, and there being a breach of the peace actually committing under his own view, he called upon the defendant to assist him in putting an end to it, and that he without lawful excuse refused so to do. It is no unimportant matter that the Queen’s subjects should assist the officers of the law, when duly required to do so, in preserving the public peace and it is right that the state of the law should be known, and that all parties violating the duty which the law casts upon them should be fully aware of the very serious risk they ran in case of refusal. It is necessary you should be satisfied of three particulars -first, that the constable actually saw a breach of the peace committed by two or more persons. It is clear that ail prize-fights are illegal, and that all persons engaging in them are punishable by law. The constable, therefore, saw parties breaking the law ; and if a breach of the peace is in the act of being committed in the presence of a constable, that constable is not only justified but bound to prevent it, or put a stop to it if it has begun, and he is bound to do so without a warrant. Secondly, you must be satisfied that there was a reasonable necessity for the constable Herbert calling upon other persons for their assistance and support; and in this case there is no doubt that the constable could not by his own unaided exertions have put an end to the combat. Lastly, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant was duly called upon to render his assistance, and that, without any physical impossibility or lawful excuse, he refused to give it. Whether the aid of the defendant, if given, would have proved sufficient or useful is not the question or the criterion. Every man might make that excuse, and say that his individual aid would have done no good; but the defendant’s refusal may have been and perhaps was the cause of that of many others. Every man is bound to set a good example to others by doing his duty in preserving the public peace.

Judges:

Alderson Baron

Citations:

(1841) C and Mar 314, [1841] EngR 932, (1841) Car and M 314, (1841) 174 ER 522

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.247477

Lincolnshire County Council v Safeway Stores Plc: Admn 19 Apr 1999

Appeal against conviction for selling food after sell by date.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 318

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990 16(1)(e), Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (1996 No. 1499) 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.139582

Oscar, Regina v: CACD 16 Jun 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful wounding and possession of an offensive weapon, an axe. He had returned to the scene of an argument, taking with him an axe. He said that, in the course of a struggle, the axe had fallen from his grip, striking the complanant. The judge had refused to allow a plea of self defence to the jury.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Astill J said: ‘Here there were two possibilities – accident or a deliberate blow aimed by the appellant – and the learned judge left both to the jury. If a man takes a weapon to threaten another and strikes a deliberate blow when others are attempting to disarm him, it is not open in ordinary circumstances for him to plead that he is being attacked. In those circumstances violence is being used on him because and only because he has used or threatened to use unlawful violence himself. That is what the judge was saying and in the view of this court he was entirely correct. There was no factual basis in this case upon which self-defence could be left to the jury.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ VP, Jowitt, Astill JJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 1959

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – The Director of Public Prosecutions v Bailey PC 15-Dec-1993
Court of Appeal of Jamaica – A lawfully armed Jamaican policeman fell into confrontation with two others. During the confrontation he shot one of them and claimed he did so in self-defence.
Held: In those circumstances it was clear that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.465036

Fitzgerald, Regina v: CACD 6 Mar 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery. At interview, his solicitor had explained his failure to answer questions by reference to the involvement of others, but in terms which treated this itself as an admission.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the terms of the summing-up, as a whole, indicated plainly to the jury that it was for them and not for the judge to decide what had happened. He made it plain to them that unless they were sure that a robbery had taken place, they must acquit the defendant. ‘

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Hidden, Penry-Davey JJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Christie HL 1914
The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion . .
Cited – Regina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
Cited – Regina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.465033

Regina v Freeman: CACD 1970

The Defendant had been charged on indictment with possessing a firearm without holding the appropriate certificate. The item alleged to be a firearm was a .380 starting revolver described as being of solid construction and with constrictions in the front ends of firing chambers, and as a revolver which could be adapted by drilling to fire bullets with lethal force. The barrel was solid but part of it had been drilled at the muzzle end. At the hearing before the jury this direction was given: ‘the barrel was blocked up. An inch of it is still solid. Any you may say to yourself, ‘That is not a revolver, it is really a starting pistol.’ And I can say is, gentlemen, that an article like this, that can be adapted to fire bullets by drilling the barrel and making some other alteration, is a firearm under the meaning of the Act. This is the law.’
Held: Sachs LJ said: ‘In conclusion there are two observation to be made. In this particular case the subject matter of the charge was identical with that in Cafferata v. Wilson. Other cases, of course, may arise when it is a question of fact and degree whether the subject matter of the charge does or does not fall within ambit of the Act and’ in such cases the issue must be left to the jury. It is also useful to remember, having regard to one of the submissions of Mr. Mendl, that it has been held in Read v. Donovan [1947] KB 326, a case concerning a signal pistol, that the intention of the manufacturer of the subject matter of the charge is irrelevant to the issue which a jury must try. That being the decision of this court on the point of law, the appeal is dismissed.’

Judges:

Sachs LJ

Citations:

[1970] 1 WLR 728

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bewley v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a firearm. The crown had been able to make it discharge a pellet only by taking elaborate preparatory steps. ‘There being no dispute but that the starting pistol was a lethal-barrelled . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.462425

Knott v Blackburn: 1944

Citations:

[1944] KB 77

Statutes:

Vagrancy Act 1824

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Akhurst v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 12-Mar-2009
The defendants appealed their convictions under the 1824 Act for being found in an enclosed space for an unlawful purpose. They had been filmed on CCTV on sites owned by Middlesex University.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The magistrates had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.334622

Collins and Keep v Regina: CACD 28 Jan 2004

When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
Held: The cases on an absence of response to an accusation or identification were not directly to the point of adopting a co-accused’s lie. Such silence could be used as evidence without necessarily breaching his right to a fair trial, but in this case the judge had not explored the necessary protections to accompany any such direction. Mere silence withoutmore should not normally be taken to be an adoption of a co-accused’s lie.

Judges:

The Hon Recorder Of Middlesbrough Mr Jusice Mccombe Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 83, Gazette 26-Feb-2004, [2004] 2 Cr App 199, [2004] 1 WLR 1705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Christie HL 1914
The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion . .
Cited – Hall v Regina PC 1970
The court asked as to the modern application of the dicta in Christie with regard to the admissibility of false statements made in the presence of a defendant but uncontradicted by him. In this case there had been no positive act to adopt the lie. . .
Cited – Regina v Mitchell 1892
The court gave the following direction to the jury as to the way in which they should treat the response of the accused to an accusation made in his presence: ‘Now the whole admissibility of statements of this kind rests upon the consideration that . .
Cited – Parkes v Regina PC 1976
The court considered whether to admit as evidence against the accused his response to an accusation made by the victim’s mother when no police officer was present and to which the defendant had reacted by threatening her. . .
Cited – Regina v Chandler CACD 1975
The defendant had refused to comment on allegations put to him when interviewed by the police. His solicitor was present.
Held: After quoting Hall, the court commented: ‘We have reservations about these two statements of law because they seem . .
Cited – Regina v Horne CACD 1990
The victim had been ‘glassed’ in a restaurant. Tne defendant was brought before the victim who immediately identified him as the assailant. He made no answer.
Held: The judge was correct to direct the jury to take the defendant’s silence in . .
Cited – Regina v Raviraj CACD 1986
The court described the circumstances where a defendant’s failure to provide an account of circumstances might lead to an inference being drawn against him: ‘where suspicious circumstances appear to demand an explanation, and no explanation . . . is . .
Cited – Condron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Osborne CACD 2-Nov-2005
The defendant challenged admission of a statement made in his presence but not contradicted by him.
Held: The court must first ask whether the defendant’s reaction was relevant. Where acquiescence was alleged, three considerations arose: 1) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.192289

Thomas v Regina: CACD 25 Mar 2020

Appeal from conviction of possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, contrary to section 16A of the Firearms Act 1969 and two offences of possession of a controlled drug of Class A, cocaine and diamorphine, with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Judges:

The Hon. Mrs Justice McGowan

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Crim 2491, [2020] WLR(D) 193

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.649944

Regina v Cosford and Others: CACD 16 Apr 2013

The appellants, female prison workers, appealed against their convictions for misconduct in public office having been found to have engaged in sexual activity with male prisoners.
Held: The appeals were dismissed: ‘Nothing in the authorities justifies the conclusion that the ‘strict confinement’ should be to the position held by whomsoever is carrying out the duty: rather, it should be addressed to the nature of the duty undertaken and, in particular, whether it is a public duty in the sense that it represents the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public have a significant interest in its discharge extending beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of the duty. This is consistent with Lord Mansfield’s observation in Bembridge referring to ‘an office of trust concerning the public.”

Judges:

Levesen LJ, Mitting, Males JJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 466, [2013] 3 WLR 1064, [2013] 2 Cr App R 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Benbridge 1783
Lord Mansfield said that: ‘a man accepting an office of trust concerning the public, especially if attended with profit, is answerable criminally to the King for misbehaviour in his office; this is true, by whomever and in whatever way the officer . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell, Regina v CACD 12-Feb-2014
‘Is a paramedic employed by a National Health Service Trust in its ambulance service the holder of a public office so as to be subject to criminal sanction for misconduct?’
Held: The appeal succeeded; he was not: ‘the nature of the duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472640

Regina v Serva and nine others: 26 Jul 1845

The court considered the meaning of the phrase ”against the peace of the King’
Held: The phrase applies to the offender: it relates to his capacity to commit the crime.

Judges:

Lord Ellenborough

Citations:

(1846) 2 C and K 53, [1845] EngR 274, (1845) 1 Den 104, (1845) 169 ER 169, [1845] EngR 1168, (1846) 2 Car and K 53, (1845) 175 ER 22

Links:

Commonlii, Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Page CMAC 1954
The defendant, a corporal in the Royal Corps of Signals had been tried and convicted by a Court Martial in Egypt for the murder of an Egyptian national in an Egyptian village. The issue in the appeal was whether a Court Martial had jurisdiction . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Adebolajo and Another CACD 3-Dec-2014
The defendants had been convicted of the brutal and public murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in London, and sentenced to whole life term for Adebolajo and 45 years for Adebowale. They now sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.247653

Regina v Arrowsmith: 1975

The defendant was charged with endeavouring to seduce a member of Her Majesty’s forces from his duty or allegiance to Her Majesty.
Held: A soldier owes allegiance to the Crown, whether he has taken the oath of allegiance or not.

Citations:

[1975] QB 678

Statutes:

Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1948
The defendant was an American citizen but held a British passport. After the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany in 1939, he delivered from German territory broadcast talks in English hostile to Great Britain.
Held: His . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Arrowsmith v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Oct-1978
(Commission) Article 9 is apt to include a belief such as pacifism, which could be a philosophy. However, Miss Arrowsmith distributed leaflets to soldiers, urging them to decline service in Northern Ireland. This was dictated by her pacifist views. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hicks CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant was held as a suspected terrorist by the US government in Guantanamo Bay. He had Australian citizenship but qualified also for British citizenship. He had sought that citizenship and protection. The secretary of state appealed an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.240383

Regina v Page: CMAC 1954

The defendant, a corporal in the Royal Corps of Signals had been tried and convicted by a Court Martial in Egypt for the murder of an Egyptian national in an Egyptian village. The issue in the appeal was whether a Court Martial had jurisdiction under the statute creating it to try for murder a British subject who had killed an alien abroad in circumstances which would amount to murder if the killing was done in England and Wales. It was argued that section 9 of the 1861 Act extended the law of murder beyond the offence of murder at common law where the victim had to be a British subject, otherwise the requirement that the killing should be ‘within the Queen’s peace would not be satisfied.
Held: The appeal failed. The general rule of English law had been that the offences committed by British subjects out of England were not punishable by the criminal law of England. Statute had made exceptions to that rule, including the statute of King Henry VIII. After considering the statutory provisions that governed the jurisdiction of Courts Martial, the court concluded that a person subject to military law could be tried for any offence, wherever committed, which would be an offence against the law of England; the crime of murder when defined in a statute had the meaning it always had: an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
As to the comment of Lord Ellenborough in R v Serva ‘That, of course, is entirely intelligible. Nobody would suggest that an English court could try an alien for an offence not committed on English soil.’ Speaking as to whether the victim of a killing committed abroad had historically to be a British subject if the killing was to amount to murder. He observed: ‘It was no doubt to allay any doubts that there may have been on the subject that section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 is in such wide terms . . We have no doubt that when the word ‘murder’ is found in a statute it has the meaning which has always attached to it throughout the ages, namely, an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ, Havers and Glyn Jones JJ

Citations:

[1954] 1 QB 170

Statutes:

Offences Agansit the Persons Act 1981 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Serva and nine others 26-Jul-1845
The court considered the meaning of the phrase ”against the peace of the King’
Held: The phrase applies to the offender: it relates to his capacity to commit the crime. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Adebolajo and Another CACD 3-Dec-2014
The defendants had been convicted of the brutal and public murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in London, and sentenced to whole life term for Adebolajo and 45 years for Adebowale. They now sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.247652