Category: Crime

Regina v Bernard: 1858

The defendant alien faced charges arising from alleged conduct within the jurisdiction, with being an accessory before the fact to the murder in Paris of people killed by a grenade thrown by an alien. Questions of law reserved included the question of whether the defendant had committed any offence having regard to the fact that the murder had been committed in France by an alien of an alien. The jury acquitted the defendant.

Citations:

(1858) 1 F and F 240

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Crime

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.247651

Asmeron v Regina: CACD 11 Apr 2013

The court gave its reasons for allowing the defendant’s appeal against his conviction for entering into the UK without a passport. He had given his passport to an agent purporting to arrange his entry and under whose control he was. He claimed refugee status from Eritrea.
Held: The question was whether this amounted to a reasonable excuse for not having it. The judge had been wrong to decide that this could not amount to a reasonable excuse. Firstly, the judge should have awaited the completion of the evidence before such a ruling.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, MacKay J, Sir David Calvert-Smith

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 435

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) v Isleworth Crown Court Admn 31-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472538

Rex v Wheatly: 1761

Lord Mansfield discussed the common law offence of cheating: ‘The offence that is indictable must be such a one as affects the public. As if a man uses false weights and measures and sells by them . . in the general course of his dealing: so if a man defrauds another under false tokens.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

(1761) 2 Burr 1127, [1761] 97 ER 746

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.324675

Dixie, Regina v: CACD 3 Feb 2009

Renewed application for leave to appeal from conviction of murder. Admission of evidence of an unprosecuted investigation of defendant on similar matter as evidence of propensity.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 188

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.321830

Rex v Orbell: 1703

The indictment stated that the defendants had fraudulently and per conspirationem, to cheat J.S. of his money, got him to lay a certain sum of money upon a foot race and prevailed with the party to run ‘booty’.
Held: No false representation was made to J.S. and he was not led to believe something to be true which was in fact false.

Citations:

(1703) 87 ER 804, (1703) 6 Mod 42,

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.324668

Regina v Yates: 1853

The defendant had been charged with conspiracy by false pretences and subtle means and devices to extort from TE a sovereign and to cheat and defraud him thereof. There was no evidence of any false pretence.
Held: The words ‘false pretences ‘ might be rejected as surplusage and held that the defendant might be convicted of conspiracy to extort and defraud. There was no deceit of TE inducing him to believe something to be true which was false.

Citations:

(1853) 6 Cox CC 441

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.324670

HM Advocate v John Robertson: 1854

Citations:

(1854) 1 Irv 469

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Kane v HM Advocate; MacAngus v HM Advocate HCJ 27-Jan-2009
The defendants appealed against convictions for culpable homicide. In each case they had supplied a drug to the victim who had then self-administered the drug and died as a consequence.
Held: The appeals failed. The court considered whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.332844

Regina v De Kromme: 1892

The defendant was indicted for soliciting a servant to conspire to cheat and defraud his master by selling his master’s goods at less than their proper price. Lord Coleridge CJ said that if the servant had sold the goods at less than their proper price, his employer would have been defrauded. The conviction was upheld. The conspiracy which the defendant was charged with inciting did not involve any deceit of the employer.

Judges:

Lord Coleridge CJ

Citations:

[1892] 17 Cox CC 492

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.324671

Thomas, Regina v: CACD 26 Apr 2002

The hearing was a third appeal upon a reference by the Commission on the defendant’s conviction for murder.
Held: Auld LJ said that the court’s jurisdiction and a duty on a reference, as in an ordinary appeal, is to consider the safety of the conviction. Section 9(2) of the 1995 Act provides that a conviction reference shall be treated ‘for all purposes’ as an appeal under section 1 of the 1968 Act. Section 13(1) of the 1995 Act empowers the Commission to make a reference if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court would not uphold a conviction in the event of a reference because of a new argument or evidence. Section 13(2) empowers it ‘in exceptional circumstances’ to make such a reference even where there is no new argument or evidence and, by necessary implication, acknowledges or extends the power of the court in exceptional circumstances to depart from its previous decision where there is no new argument or evidence.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 941

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Pinfold CACD 1988
Once a person convicted of an offence on indictment appeals against that conviction and that appeal has been determined on its merits, the court has no jurisdiction to re-open it on fresh evidence coming to light.
Lord Lane CJ considered the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stock CACD 8-Aug-2008
The defendant sought to appeal his conviction in 1970 for robbery. He had refused to attend an identity parade but was then confronted with the main witness. Witnesses had also been shown photographs from which they were said to have selected the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.171190

Bucur And Toma v Romania: ECHR 8 Jan 2013

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Criminal conviction for making public irregular telephone tapping procedures: violation
Facts – The first applicant worked in the telephone communications surveillance and recording department of a military unit of the Romanian Intelligence Service (RIS). In the course of his work he came across a number of irregularities. In addition, the telephones of a large number of journalists, politicians and businessmen were tapped, especially after some high-profile news stories received wide media coverage. The applicant affirmed that he reported the irregularities to his colleagues and the head of department, who allegedly reprimanded him. When the people he spoke to showed no further interest in the matter, the applicant contacted an MP who was a member of the RIS parliamentary supervisory commission. The MP told him that the best way to let people know about the irregularities he had discovered was to hold a press conference. In his opinion telling the parliamentary commission about the irregularities would serve no purpose in view of the ties between the chairman of the commission and the director of the RIS. On 13 May 1996 the applicant held a press conference which made headline news nationally and internationally. He justified his conduct by the desire to see the laws of his country – and in particular the Constitution – respected. In July 1996 criminal proceedings were brought against him. Amongst other things, he was accused of gathering and imparting secret information in the course of his duty. In 1998 he was given a two-year suspended prison sentence.
One of the tapes the applicant had made public contained a recording of a telephone conversation between the third applicant, the minor daughter of the second applicant, and her mother on the telephone at the home of the second and third applicants.
Law – Article 10: The applicant’s criminal conviction had interfered with his right to freedom of expression, with the legitimate aim of preventing and punishing offences that threatened national security. Concerns about the foreseeability of the legal basis for the conviction did not need to be examined in so far as the measure was, in any event, not necessary in a democratic society.
(a) Whether or not the applicant had other means of imparting the information – No official procedure existed. All the applicant could do was inform his superiors of his concerns. But the irregularities he had discovered concerned them directly. It was therefore unlikely that any internal complaints the applicant made would have led to an investigation and put a stop to the unlawful practices concerned. As regards a complaint to the parliamentary commission responsible for supervising the RIS, the applicant had contacted an MP who was a member of the commission, who had advised him that such a complaint would serve no useful purpose. The Court was not convinced, therefore, that a formal complaint to this commission would have been an effective means of tackling the irregularities. It was worth noting that Romania had passed special laws to protect whistleblowers in the public service. However, these new laws, which were all the more praiseworthy as very few other States had introduced them, had been passed well after the activities denounced by the applicant, and therefore did not apply to him. Consequently, divulging the information directly to the public had been justifiable.
(b) The public interest value of the information divulged – The interception of telephone communications took on a particular importance in a society which had been accustomed under the communist regime to a policy of close surveillance by the secret services. Furthermore, civil society was directly affected by the information concerned, as anyone’s telephone calls might be intercepted. The information the applicant had disclosed related to abuses committed by high-ranking officials and affected the democratic foundations of the State. It concerned very important issues for the political debate in a democratic society, in which public opinion had a legitimate interest. The domestic courts did not take this argument of the applicant into account, however.
(c) The accuracy of the information made public – The applicant had spotted a number of irregularities. All the evidence seemed to support his conviction that there were no signs of any threat to national security that could justify the interception of the telephone calls, and indeed that no authorisation for the phone tapping had been given by the public prosecutor. In addition, the courts had refused to examine the merits of the authorisations produced by the RIS for the interception of the phone calls. The domestic courts had thus not attempted to examine every aspect of the case, but had simply acknowledged the existence of the requisite authorisations. Yet the applicant’s defence comprised two arguments: firstly that the requisite authorisations had not been obtained, and secondly that there was no evidence of any threat to national security that could possibly have justified the alleged interception of the telephone conversations of numerous politicians, journalists and members of the public. What is more, the Government had failed to explain why the information divulged by the applicant was classified ‘top secret’; instead, they had refused to produce the full criminal case file, which included the requests from the RIS and the authorisations of the public prosecutor. In such conditions the Court could only trust the copies of these documents submitted by the applicants concerning the interception of the telephone conversations of the second applicant, Mr Toma. However, these documents showed that the RIS had given no reasons for requesting the authorisation and the public prosecutor had given no reasons for granting it. The first applicant had accordingly had reasonable grounds to believe that the information he divulged was true.
(d) The damage done to the RIS – The general interest in the disclosure of information revealing illegal activities within the RIS was so important in a democratic society that it prevailed over the interest in maintaining public confidence in that institution.
(e) The good faith of the first applicant – There was no reason to believe that the applicant was driven by any motive other than the desire to make a public institution abide by the laws of Romania and in particular the Constitution. This was supported by the fact that he had not chosen to go to the press directly, in order to reach the broadest possible audience, but had first turned to a member of the parliamentary commission responsible for supervising the RIS.
Consequently, the interference with the first applicant’s freedom of expression, and in particular with his right to impart information, had not been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation in respect of the first applicant (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of Article 6 in respect of the first applicant and a violation of Article 8 and of Article 13 combined with Article 8 in respect of the second and third applicants.
Article 41: The applicants were each awarded a sum ranging from EUR 7,800 to EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the first applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was rejected.

Citations:

40238/02 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 291

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10-1

Human Rights, Media, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472435

Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 27 Mar 2013

The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted by the respondent as to the conduct of the trial. He said there was a real risk of a flagrantly unfair trial.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘to succeed in this appeal, the Secretary of State has to show that SIAC erred in law. It is not sufficient to persuade us that we would have reached a different conclusion on the facts and Mr Eadie rightly recognised the difficulty of such an exercise. The Secretary of State accepts that SIAC directed itself properly as to the general legal test to apply. Her case that SIAC nevertheless erred in law is based on a detailed examination of a careful and comprehensive judgment. As we have stated . . criticisms of this kind of a decision by a specialist tribunal are particularly difficult to sustain. For the reasons that we have given, we are satisfied that SIAC did not commit any legal errors.’

Judges:

Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Elias LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
SIAC Bail Application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
SIAC Baill – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .
Admn Reasons – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
At HL – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
Appeal from – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Immigration, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472067

Dawes and Others v Regina: CACD 26 Mar 2013

The defendants appealed their respective convictions for murder, saying that they had been provoked, and that their judges had wrongly directed their juries as to what amounted to qualifying trigger under the 2009 Act, which had replaced the former provocation defence.
Held: Each appeal was rejected.
To raise the defence, the defendant had to establish three elements; that his actions resulted from his loss of self control (not now necessarily sudden), that there was a ‘qualifying trigger’, and that another in his circumstances might have reacted similarly. The court was now concerned as to the second issue. The court emphasised that the issue should not be elided with an issue of self defence.
The presence of such a threat, that it was extremely grave, and the defendant felt so seriously wronged so as to justify his actions, was not to be defined by the defendant’s assertions. These were for the objective assessment by the judge after the evidence.

Judges:

Lord Judge CJ, Rafferty LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947, [2013] 3 All ER 308, [2013] WLR(D) 130, [2013] Crim LR 770, [2013] 2 Cr App R 3

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472033

Pollett and Others v Regina: CACD 26 Mar 2013

Parties had been convicted of various offences associated with the conduct of a large Ponzi investment fraud scheme, and now appealed against sentence and or conviction.
Held: In P’s case, the charges had been laid as alternatives, and having been convicted of one offence, the judge should have withdrawn the other which was derived from the same facts. That appeal succeeded. As to sentence, he had been dishonest from the outset, and his please of sorrow were hollow. This was a case of the utmost gravity. The sentence was adjusted to reflect time spent in custody pending trial. H’s wife’s appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

Judges:

Raffert LJ, Wilkie, Macduff JJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v McEvilly CACD 2008
The appellant had pleaded guilty to count 3, unlawful wounding, contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act. The trial went ahead on counts 1 and 2, attempted murder and wounding with intent; all three counts in the alternative. After a majority . .
Cited – Regina v Cole CCA 1965
Six men robbed the bank manager and his assistant of monies in a safe in the vault of the bank premises. Two days later the appellant paid part of the proceeds of the robbery into two banks, located nearby to the vicinity of the robbery. Wax seals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472036

United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland and Others v Kadi: ECJ 19 Mar 2013

ECJ Appeal – Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – Freezing of a person’s funds and economic resources as a result of his inclusion in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations – Committee of the Security Council created by paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999) of the Security Council (Sanctions Committee) – Inclusion of a person in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – Action for annulment – Fundamental rights – Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to respect for property – Extent and intensity of judicial review

Citations:

C-584/10, [2013] EUECJ C-584/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 881/2002

European, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471911

MacDaniel’s Case: 1775

It is the indictable offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice knowingly to charge a man falsely with any crime.

Citations:

(1775) 19 St Tr 745

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Cotter and Others CACD 10-May-2002
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. They said that the fact that an investigation followed a false allegation was insufficient to found a complaint, and that the extent of the crime was so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.383661

Brooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection: Admn 25 May 2006

The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones of strict liability. The judge had looked to the outcome of the offences of failing to make arrangements, finding that if administered drugs were not recorded, then it was the case that proper arrangements for recording had not been made. The protection to the defendant came in that he would first receive a notice on which he could make representations.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay: ‘Describing offences as ones of ‘strict liability’ is not the same as describing them as ones of ‘absolute liability’. In the present context it means that the proven facts establish the offence without regard to what was in the mind or imputed mind of the defendant. Outcome is relevant but not necessarily determinative. It is a question of fact and degree. In considering that question, the National Minimum Standards are relevant and must be taken into account. That does not mean, as Mr Kimblin submits, that the Standards are being allowed to create or define the offences. It simply means that, in deciding whether a statutorily defined offence has been committed, the court will take into account the statutorily enabled standards. ‘

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1165 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Care Standards Act 2000 25, Care Homes Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove QBD 17-Jun-1999
The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242202

Department for Work and Pensions v Courts: Admn 3 May 2006

The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, the appellant had increased the charges adding allegations of dishonesty which had not been put to the defendant.
Held: ‘The finding of a deliberate manipulation of the court process by a prosecutor is a very serious accusation and ought not to be based on inferences drawn from the conduct of an interview and the passage of time.’ There was nothing to indicate that the finally chosen offences were not justified by the evidence. Questions of delay as an infringement of the right to a fair trial arose as between the dat of charge and determination. The cae did not get to determination.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1156 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
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 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 – Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn CA 1968
Answerability of Chief Constables
The constitutional status of the Commissioner had never been defined, either by statute or by the courts. By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law. The court considered the extent to which a court . .
Cited – Regina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Cited – Regina v Croydon Justices Ex Parte Dean QBD 9-Mar-1993
The applicant a 17 year old assisted the police in a murder investigation on the understanding, induced by the police, that he would not himself be prosecuted. Some weeks later, at the instance of the CPS, the applicant was charged with a lesser . .
Cited – Eckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242204

Regina v KL: CACD 22 Jan 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape and against his sentence. He complained that the judge had allowed two unconnected allegations to appear on the same indictment. He had also been convicted of the burglary of the complainant’s home on a different occasion.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. This was a plain case where it was obviously right for the two counts to be put in the same indictment and it would have been impossible for the jury to deal satisfactorily with the matter if they had not been.
The appeal against sentence succeeded given the unusual circumstances.

Judges:

Elias LJ, Field J, John Batty QC

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kray CACD 1969
The court dealt with a case where prejudice was claimed on behalf of the defendant because of publicity before the trial. Lawton J said: ‘The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.’
Cited – Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1971
Two offences can constitute a series of offences, but there has to be some nexus between the offences. Lord Pearson said: ‘In my opinion, however, it is important to notice that there has to be a series of offences of a similar character. For this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471586

Evans, Regina v: CACD 23 Jan 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had been deported to Jamaica, but returned with a forged passport which was detected on entry. The court had rejected his argument that he was a refugee entitled to protection after fleeing gangs in Jamaica.
Held: On the evidence before the jury, there was no possible basis for classifying the appellant as a refugee.

Judges:

Jackson LJ, Wyn Williams J, Beaumont QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 125, [2013] WLR(D) 22

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees made at Geneva in 1951, Identity Documents Act 2010 4, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Acosta 1985
US Board of Immigration Appeals –
Held: ‘We find the well-established doctrine of ejusdem generis, meaning literally, ‘of the same kind,’ to be most helpful in construing the phrase ‘membership in a particular social group.’ That doctrine . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471585

Shillam v Regina: CACD 22 Feb 2013

The appellant was given leave to appeal on the single ground that the direction given by the judge in response to a note from the jury allowed the possibility that the appellant and his co-accused were convicted of the offence charged without the jury necessarily being sure that they were all guilty of the same conspiracy. The appellant also renews his application for permission to appeal on the ground that the judge failed properly to direct the jury as to the need for proof both of the conspiracy alleged and of the appellant’s participation in it. The complaint made under this head is linked with the complaint made about the judge’s response to the question from the jury and we give leave for the appellant to advance it.
Held: ‘it is possible . . that the evidence may prove the existence of a conspiracy of narrower scope and involving fewer people than the prosecution originally alleged, in which case it is not intrinsically wrong for the jury to return guilty verdicts accordingly, but it is always necessary that for two or more persons to be convicted of a single conspiracy each of them must be proved to have shared a common purpose or design’

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Griffith Williams J, Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471175

Lukstins v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 14 Nov 2012

The appellant challenged his conviction for sexual crimes, saying that the taking of a swab from his mouth for a DNA test had been unlawful, and the evidence consequent to that should not have been admitted.
Held: The appeal was refused. Cowie was overturned.

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Menzies, Lord Brodie,
Lord Doherty

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 146, 2013 JC 124, 2012 SCCR 787, 013 GWD 1-11, 2013 SCL 61, 2013 SLT 11, [2012] HCJAC 146

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471092

B v Regina: CACD 31 Jan 2013

The Court was asked whether it was open to a defendant charged with rape contrary to section 1 of the 2003 Act to rely upon a ‘deluded’ belief in the consent of the complainant.
Held: Hughes LJ said: ‘Both the common law and statute law are well used to a rule which judges a defendant by his subjective state of mind. So, for example, in the case where self-defence is at issue the defendant is to be judged according to the facts as he genuinely believed them to be, whether his belief was reasonable or not, at least unless it was attributable to voluntary intoxication. Criminal damage, which arises also in the present case is not committed if the defendant honestly believes he had (or would have had) the consent of the owner of the property damage to do what he did, even if that belief was unreasonable. But the decisive indication as to the law of rape is, we think, that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 deliberately departs from this model. It deliberately does not make belief and consent enough. The belief must not only be genuinely held; it must also be reasonable in all the circumstances. This was a conscious departure from the former law. Under the former law a genuine belief in consent (reasonable or not) was a complete defence to rape; the reasonableness of the belief was material only as a factor to be considered en route to the decision whether it was genuinely held: see the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 . . We conclude that unless and until the state of mind amounts to insanity in law, then under the rule enacted in the Sexual Offences Act beliefs in consent arising from conditions such as delusional psychotic illness or personality disorders must be judged by objective standards of reasonableness and not by taking into account a mental disorder which induced a belief which could not reasonably arise without it. The defendant’s mental condition, and its impact on his behaviour, is of course extremely relevant to sentence. If punishment is inappropriate, a non-custodial sentence may result when otherwise there would have been a substantial sentence of imprisonment, and whether a hospital order is needed by the time of trial or not. In other cases it may significantly mitigate the punishment required. In yet others, it may result in a substantial custodial sentence recognising the danger which the defendant presents.’

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Macur, Maddison JJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 3, [2013] WLR(D) 43

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 1, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Press and Another v Regina CACD 24-Oct-2013
Three defendants appealed against their convictions of assault. One defendant argued that the court did not direct the jury as to the effect of intoxication and/or post-traumatic stress disorder upon the issue of intent, and as to whether and to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470986

B v Germany: ECJ 9 Nov 2010

ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of ‘serious non-political crime’ – Notion of ‘acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ – Membership of an organisation involved in terrorist acts – Subsequent inclusion of that organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities which forms the Annex to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Individual responsibility for part of the acts committed by that organisation – Conditions – Right of asylum by virtue of national constitutional law – Compatibility with Directive 2004/83/EC
Directive 2004/83/EC

Judges:

V Skouris P

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-57/09, C-57/09

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Opinion – B v Germany ECJ 1-Jun-2010
ECJ Minimum standards for conditions to be fulfilled by third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees – Reasons for exclusion from refugee status – Article 12, paragraph 2 b) of Directive 2004/83 / EC . .

Cited by:

Cited – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Nov-2012
The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470873

Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 12 Nov 2012

The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed

Judges:

Mitting J Pteers Lane UTJ, Dame Denise Holt

Citations:

[2012] UKSIAC 15/2005 – 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
ECHR PR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
SIAC Bail Application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
SIAC – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .
Admn Reasons – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
At HL – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470897

B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Preliminary Issue – Allowed): SIAC 26 Jul 2012

The appellant was vietnamese by birth, but had later been granted British Citizenship. The Secretary of State came to seek to deprive him of that citizenship on conducive grounds for reasons of national security, and his deportation to Vietnam. The appellant appealed saying that the notice would leave him stateless.
Held: If the result of the decision wold be to make him stateless, then an order could not be made. The court considered the state of Vietnamese law and practice in such circumstances: ‘Now that the Vietnamese government has received adequate information about the appellant, we are satisfied that it does not consider him to be a Vietnamese national under the operation of its law. Its decision may, to western eyes appear arbitrary. Nevertheless, for reasons which are more fully explained in the closed judgment, we are satisfied that that is the stance of the Vietnamese government. Given that both Vietnamese law and state practice give it that power, we must accept that it is effective. Accordingly, the answer to the preliminary question is that the decision of the Secretary of State to deprive the appellant of his citizenship on 22nd December 2011 did make him stateless and so is not permitted under section 40(4) of the 1981 Act.’

Judges:

Mitting J, Allen UTJ, P Nelson

Citations:

[2012] UKSIAC 114/2012)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40(2), Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 24-May-2013
Appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in which the issue was whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to deprive a British Citizen originating from Vietnam of British nationality following his alleged . .
See Also – Pham v The United States of America Admn 12-Dec-2014
The defendant appealed against an order for his extradition to the USA to face extra-territorial terrorist charges.
Held: The court dismissed the appeal: ‘whether the appellant is a British citizen or not makes no difference to his relevant . .
At SIAC – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470891

Regina v Bristol Magistrates Court ex parte E: CA 1998

Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It is a principle of legal policy that a person should not be penalised except under clear law.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[1998] 3 All ER 798

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haw, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 8-May-2006
The applicant had demonstrated continuously against the war in Iraq from the pavement outside the House of Commons. The respondent sought an order for his removal under the law preventing demonstrations near Parliament without consent which was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.242610

Regina v Martens: CA 15 Dec 1997

This was an application for a public interest immunity certificate. An informant was involved, and the defence had not been notified of the application, out of concern that he may come to know of the existence of the informant. That situation was to be reviewed as the trial progressed. There was matter received from interceptions under the Act. Certain matters had been disclosed by solicitors under Money Laundering Regulations. The orders were made.

Judges:

Mr Justice Langley

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2995

Statutes:

Interception of Communications Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143394

Director of Public Prosecutions v Parker: Admn 12 May 2006

The prosecutor appealed the acquittal of the defendant on a charge of allowing himself to be carried in a vehicle taken without the owner’s consent. The driver had been convicted on his own admission, and the prosecutor had presented only the certificate of conviction.
Held: The memorandum of conviction went beyond being only evidence that the driver had admitted the ofence and was strong evidence also that the offence had been committed. The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Leveson J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1270 (Admin), Times 07-Jun-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242551

Barrington and Others, Regina v: CACD 2 Apr 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 980

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.181943

Director of Public Prosecutions v Morrison: Admn 4 Apr 2003

The Director appealed dismissal of charges under the Acts against the respondent. There had been a fight in a shopping mall. The mall was private land over which there was a public right of way. The respondent objected when the officer taped off an area of the mall to investigate.
Held: The owner of the land would be able to withdraw access, and an officer acting within the law could be assumed to have the owner’s consent to do the same thing. If it was lawful to cordon an area off, he was acting lawfully in preventing access, and the arrest was lawful. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 683 (Admin), Times 21-Apr-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 5, Police Act 1996 89(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Waterfield and Lynn 1963
A police officer does not have an unfettered right to restrict movements on private land.
Ashworth J said: ‘In the judgment of this court it would be difficult . . to reduce within specific limits the general terms in which the duties of . .
Cited – Ghani v Jones CA 1970
The court was asked as to the powers of the police to retain objects taken and impounded.
Held: The privacy and possessions of an individual were not to be invaded except for the most compelling reasons.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Balancing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.180751

European Commission v Planet Ae: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

ECJ Appeals – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity – Early warning system – OLAF investigation – Decisions – Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings – Reviewable measures – Admissibility

Judges:

A. Tizzano, P

Citations:

C-314/11, [2012] EUECJ C-314/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468771

Smith v Regina: CACD 29 Nov 2012

The defendant had been acquitted of offences relating to the damage of aircraft by reason of his insanity. The court now considered the making of an order under the 1977 Act after that acquittal.
Held: The court set out the following principles: ‘Since the purpose of an order under section 5A is to protect a person from harassment by an acquitted defendant, the court must first be satisfied that the defendant is likely to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment within the meaning of section 1 of the Act.
It does not follow that because references to harassing a person include alarming a person or causing a person distress, that therefore any course of conduct which causes alarm or distress amounts to harassment. Essentially harassment: ‘involves persistent conduct of a seriously oppressive nature, either physically or mentally, targeted at an individual and resulting in fear or distress.’
The power to make an order under section 5A is circumscribed by the important words: ‘necessary . . to protect a person from harassment by a defendant.’
The word ‘necessary’ is not to be diluted. To make an order prohibiting a person who has not committed any criminal offence from doing an act which is otherwise lawful on pain of imprisonment is an interference with the person’s freedom of action which can be justified only when it is truly ‘necessary’ for the protection of some other person.

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Langstaff J, Morris QC

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2566, [2013] 2 All ER 804, [2013] 1 WLR 1399, [2012] WLR(D) 362, (2013) 177 JP 183, [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 28, [2013] MHLR 201, [2013] Crim LR 250

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection From Harassment Act 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Jose, Regina v CACD 23-May-2013
The defendant had been acquitted of having a bladed article in a public pace, and now appealed against the making of a restraining order against him under the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the requirements of the making of a . .
Cited – Calland v Financial Conduct Authority CA 13-Mar-2015
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claim of harassment against the Authority who had contacted him in an intended review of pensions mis-selling. They had contacted him once by letter, once by telephone and once by e-mail.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466970

Regina v Fagan: CACD 7 Sep 2012

Judges:

Rafferty LJ, Mitting, Sharp JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2248

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Adeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466964

Siddall and Brooke, Regina v: CACD 15 Jun 2006

The court considered cases referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Each related to convictions for sexual assaults on children in care. New material including several untrue allegations by the complainants suggested that the convictions might be unsafe.
Held: The evidence of other similar allegations and history of unreliability made the convictions safe. The court criticised the delay in the presentation of the cases, and the manner of presentation: ‘The overriding objective, as set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No 384) (‘the Rules’) Part 1 Rule 1.1(2)(e), requires all criminal cases to be dealt with ‘efficiently and expeditiously’. This equally applies to criminal appeals’

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Gloster J, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1353, Times 26-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Percival CACD 19-Jun-1998
There was an additional burden on a judge in a case involving very old allegations of sexual abuse to use his imprimatur to emphasise to the jury the additional difficulties faced by a defendant and the high burden of proof. . .
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: . .

Cited by:

See Also – Siddall, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 16-Mar-2009
The claimant had been imprisoned then released after his conviction for sexual assaults. He appealed against rejection of his claim for compensation. The criterion for compensation was demonstrating that something had ‘gone seriously wrong in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.243064

Hussain, Regina v: CACD 2 Apr 2019

What a trial judge should do when the sole issue to be determined at trial is the partial defence of diminished responsibility provided by section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 (as amended) and there is unanimity amongst the psychiatric experts as to the mental health of the killer at the time of the killing.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 666

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.637812