Category: Crime

Hill v HM Advocate: HCJ 30 Oct 2014

The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a blade in a public place. He argued that he had a reasonable excuse. He was driving a friend’s car and said he had no knowledge of what was in the boot and elsewhere.
Held: The offence under section 49 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 is committed where a person ‘has’ ‘with him’ a bladed article. It is clear from Crowe v Waugh 1999 JC 292 that the approach taken in Scotland is that Parliament deliberately intended not to include such factors as knowledge and intent in the section and that therefore these matters are irrelevant to the initial question of whether someone has an item with him. However, it is correct to say that a person can have an item with him without knowing of the item’s existence, at least if he ought to have been aware of it. Nevertheless, where lack of knowledge is proffered as an excuse by an accused person in evidence, as in this case, it is almost inevitable that an appropriate direction should be given to the effect that such an excuse may be found to exist by the jury. It follows, therefore, that this appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.

Lord Carloway
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 117
Bailii
Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995
Scotland

Crime

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539868

Leeks, Regina v: CACD 6 Jul 2009

Application for leave to appeal against conviction – validity of a count which was added to an indictment without the court making an order for amendment as required by section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915.

[2009] EWCA Crim 1612, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 5, [2010] Crim LR 641, [2010] RTR 16
Bailii
Indictments Act 1915 5(1)
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.371871

Tilley, Regina v: CACD 20 Jul 2009

The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge against the defendant of allowing another to fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances. The recorder had rules that ‘allow’ required some positive act from the defendant.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence required the defendant to have had some active involvement in the failure to notify. It was the defendant’s partner’s obligation to notify, not the defendant’s. The court referred to a statement in the House when the bill was proposed supporting this view.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice King and Judge Moss, QC
[2009] EWCA Crim 1426, Times 05-Aug-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 605, (2009) 173 JP 393, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 31
Bailii
Social Security Administration Act 1992 111A(1B), Social Security Fraud Act 2001
England and Wales

Crime, Benefits

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.365625

Webster v Regina: CACD 3 Mar 2006

The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish dangerous driving. Woodward decided only that evidence of drinking was admissible, not that it was evidence capable of determining the standard of driving. In his summing up, the judge twice referred to whether it had been wise of the defendant to allow the driver to drive given his state. This was not the question posed by s2A: ‘The question was whether the appellant recognised, by virtue of what he saw to be Westbrook’s drunken condition, that Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. It is one thing to set out to prove that it was dangerous to permit Westbrook to drive because he had been drinking or was drunk. It is a quite different question whether, by virtue of the amount it was apparent to the appellant that Westbrook had drunk, the appellant realised Westbrook was likely to drive dangerously. ‘ The conviction was unsafe.

Moses LJ, Jack J, Royce J
[2006] EWCA Crim 415, Times 15-Mar-2006
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 2A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v McBride 1961
Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving. . .
Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD 7-Dec-1994
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . .
Cited – Johnson v Youden KBD 1950
For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements of his acts which constituted the complete crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious.
Lord . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .

Cited by:
Cited – Martin v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2010
The defendant had been a passenger on a car driven by a learner driver. The car crashed killing the driver and seriously injuring another. He appealed against his conviction for aiding and abetting dangerous driving.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.239058

Regina v Thirwell: CACD 14 Feb 2002

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He said that three pieces of evidence should have been excluded. The police station interview had been conducted against a background where his solicitor had been denied access to a post mortem report. However no deceit had been practised on the solicitor. The objection to the use of reported prison conversations was unsuccessful, and the judge had dealt properly with facts about the condition of the deceased immediately before death. Appeal dismissed.

Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Buckley And Mrs Justice Hallett DBE
[2002] EWCA Crim 286
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Imran, Hussain CACD 9-Jun-1997
The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.167996

James, Regina v: CACD 17 May 2002

Appeal against conviction arises from an established conspiracy to defraud. The first of three grounds was that the verdict was inconsistent with the previous acquittals at the earlier trial of two co-defendants, J and B. The second was that it was unfair to allow another co-defendant at the earlier trial, K, who was then convicted, to give evidence against J at his retrial without giving full disclosure of privileged material. The third is that there had been such delay overall in dealing with the prosecution as to amount to a breach of the requirement of article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

[2002] EWCA Crim 1119
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.171193

Regina v Errol Garvey: CACD 30 Jan 2002

The appellant appealed a conviction for manslaughter and his sentence. There was a history of conflict between the appellant and the victim, and both had met up carrying knives. Witnesses said the appellant was the attacker. He claimed the judge had given a misdirection as to self-defence.
Held: An assertion as to a misdirection must specify the precise fault alleged. This did not happen here. The case involved a defendant arming himself with two knives, and setting off looking for a fight in anger. The sentence of nine years was not excessive.

Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Holman And Mr Justice Grigson
[2002] EWCA Crim 2
Bailii
Homicide Act, 1957 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Jack Fielding 1938
The defendant appealed alleging a misdirection of the jury by the judge.
Held: du Parcq J said: ‘it is most unsatisfactory that grounds of appeal should be drawn with such vagueness as we find in the present case . . It has been said many . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1996 CACD 1997
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.167990

Regina v Kirk; Regina v Russell: CACD 31 May 2002

The defendants appealed convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. They claimed that the availability to a defendant under 23 of a special defence which was not available to them because of their own age was discriminatory.
Held: the absence of the defence was not discriminatory. A similar defence was available to a female defendant, and she would be in the same position if she was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse as an aider or abettor. It was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate that once on reaching the age of 24 the defence became unavailable. Some element of arbitrariness was inescapable.

Lord Justice Judge, Mr Justice Hunt and Mr Justice Keith
Times 26-Jun-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002
Sexual Offences Act 1956 6(1) 6(3), European Convention on Human Rights 6 14
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – E v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed against his conviction for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. He was himself under 16, and complained that the section turned the girl into a victim and him into an offender and that this was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.174084

Regina v Colwill: CACD 31 May 2002

The appellant appealed against a conviction for rape. His defence had been that the complainant was not to be believed. The prosecution withheld from the defence facts about other witnesses complaining about false allegations made by the complainant.
Held: The test was whether the facts which might have been established could have been expected to have influenced a jury. It was not clear that all the evidence might have been admissible, not falling within any of the classes of case on which evidence as to a witness’ character was admissible. Appeal dismissed.

Lord Justice Mantell
[2002] EWCA Crim 1320
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime, Evidence

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.172270

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v London Concrete Ltd: Admn 13 Dec 2001

The respondent company was acquitted after its vehicle, exceeding the maximum weight, was driven on a restricted street in contravention of the regulations. No unrestricted street allowed access to the destination. The delivery was on the company’s business, but the driver was self employed. The district judge had held that it was sufficient of the lorry was being used ‘ for the purposes of the Respondent company’s business’, but that the company had discharged the burden of showing it was not itself using the vehicle. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The offence in question is one of strict or absolute liability. This is best not seen as a case of vicarious liability, but rather of a special use of the word ‘use’ in road traffic law. The test was ‘Is the owner reasonably capable of giving instructions and exercising control over the driver to ensure compliance with Article 3?’ In this case the district judge had applied the wrong test, and the appeal was allowed.

The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
[2001] EWHC Admin 1077
Bailii
Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1995 Art 3, Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 8(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Richmond v Jon Morton (T/a Morts Trucking Co) Admn 20-Jul-1999
. .
Cited – Hallett Silbermand Limited v Cheshire County Council 1993
. .
Cited – JG Williams (T/A Wiltrans International) v Harboard for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames QBD 20-Feb-1996
The court considered the liability of an employer for a road traffic offence committed by his employee: ‘I am of the view that it is not appropriate to think in terms simply of basing this conviction on vicarious liability. That is a concept which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.167364

MD v Ireland (Dec): ECHR 16 Sep 2014

ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Difference in criminal liability between underage boys and underage girls engaging in sexual intercourse: inadmissible
Facts – At the age of 15, the applicant engaged in sexual acts with a 14 year-old girl. He was subsequently convicted under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, which made it an offence to engage in a sexual act with a child under the age of 17, there being no defence of consent. In his application to the European Court, the applicant effectively complained of discriminatory treatment in that, by virtue of Section 5 of the Act, girls under the age of 17, unlike boys, could not be guilty of an offence under the Act by reason only of engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. The rationale for this difference in treatment was explained by the domestic courts as being to protect young girls from pregnancy, as they were only relieved from criminal liability in respect of intercourse, not in respect of other sexual activity with underage children.
Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8: The State must be allowed a margin of appreciation in determining whether different treatment is justified between two similar situations. Unlike the usual position in cases concerning sex discrimination, in the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case, which concerned a weighty matter of public interest – protecting the integrity and well-being of children – that margin was not to be narrowly confined.
As to the question of objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment, the Irish legislature had objective reason to criminalise all sexual activity involving children (to protect them from physical and psychological harm) and to make special provision for girls only in respect of sexual intercourse (because of the added hazard for girls of pregnancy). Accordingly, it could not be said that Section 5, which provided a limited exemption from criminal liability for girls in respect of one form of sexual activity – sexual intercourse – was arbitrary or motivated merely by traditions, general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes in the respondent State. The Court did not consider that the exemption from criminal liability applied to young girls in respect only of sexual intercourse was so broad as to raise a doubt about its proportionality to its intended and legitimate aim. Instead, the legislation achieved an accommodation between the need to deter and punish sexual acts involving children and the reality that it was not uncommon for young people to be engaged in underage sexual activity. Just as the penalties were increased where the perpetrator was a person in authority over the child, so the consequences were lessened where the parties were close in age. Moreover, where the persons concerned were underage, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) examined each case in the light of its individual facts, paying particular regard to any element of exploitation but also taking account of any genuine emotional relationship between the parties, in order to determine whether the public interest required prosecution.
The difference in treatment was, therefore not lacking in justification, and fell within the State’s margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 6 and Article 14: The applicant argued that it was unfair that he alone should face a criminal charge and that the 2006 Act specifically excluded the defence of consent even though the offence of defilement through sexual intercourse was essentially akin to a rape charge. He also submitted that the fact that the DPP was vested with discretion under the Act did not cure the unfairness or act as any sort of safeguard as the DPP was not required to give reasons for taking proceedings or to have regard to the fact that the accused was himself a child at the material time.
The Court rejected these arguments. The discrimination complaint was essentially a reiteration of that already examined under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. Referring to its decision in the similar case of G. v. the United Kingdom, the Court found no reason to impugn the choice of the Irish Parliament to exclude the defence of consent in respect of offences perpetrated upon children. Indeed, this was entirely consistent with the Act’s important purpose. Nor did the applicant’s criticism of the DPP’s discretion add anything to his complaint of unfairness. In some jurisdictions prosecutorial discretion was a feature of the criminal law. Moreover, the applicant appeared to have benefitted in several respects from the DPP’s discretion as he had been charged with the lesser (Section 3) offence which meant a lighter range of sentences and his not being registered as a sex offender, and he had also avoided prosecution on a separate count of buggery.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

50936/12 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1285
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Crime, Children

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538920

Yilmaz Yildiz And Others v Turkey: ECHR 14 Oct 2014

ECHR Article 11-1
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Failure to assess proportionality when convicting applicants for taking part in public demonstration: violation
Facts – In their capacity as branch chairmen and officers of local branches of the Health and Social Workers’ Union, the applicants participated in gatherings outside two local hospitals in which they read out a press release issued by the trade union criticising the transfer of the hospitals to the Ministry of Health. The police did not prevent or interfere with either of the gatherings, but instead issued verbal warnings that they were illegal and ordered their dispersion. In subsequent court proceedings the applicants were found guilty of disobeying official orders and ordered to pay fines of approximately EUR 62 each. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.
Law – Article 11: The prosecution and conviction of the applicants for drawing attention to the transfer of hospitals to the Ministry of Health – a topical issue at the time – could have had a chilling effect and discouraged them from participating in similar meetings in the future. It thus constituted an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court reiterated that any demonstration in a public place inevitably caused a certain level of disruption to ordinary life and it was thus important for public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 was not to be deprived of all substance. Moreover, a peaceful demonstration should in principle not be made subject to the threat of penal sanction. However, the applicants were convicted for merely participating in a public demonstration without any assessment by the domestic courts of the proportionality of such an interference with their freedom of assembly. The reasons given by the domestic courts were therefore neither relevant nor sufficient.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 1,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 62 each in respect of pecuniary damage.

4524/06 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1270
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538726

Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions; Director of Public Prosecutions v Percy: QBD 1993

The defendants appealed against convictions for having entered military bases contrary to various bye-laws. They challenged the validity of the bye-laws.
Held: The validity of a bye-law could be challenged in criminal proceedings, but where the irregularity alleged was procedural, the bye-law remained effective until it was set aside in civil proceedings. Except in the ‘flagrant’ and ‘outrageous’ case a statutory order, such as a byelaw, remains effective until it is quashed. Byelaws which are on their face invalid or are patently unreasonable (termed ‘substantive’ invalidity) may be called in question by way of defence in criminal proceedings, whereas byelaws which are invalid because of some defect in the procedure by which they came to be made (termed ‘procedural’ invalidity) may not be called in question in such proceedings, so that a person might be convicted of an offence under them even if the byelaws were later quashed in other proceedings.

[1993] QB 473, [1993] 2 WLR 628
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith (Kathleen Rose) v East Elloe Rural District Council HL 26-Mar-1956
The plaintiff challenged a compulsory purchase order as unlawful and made in bad faith and sought damages for trespass. Paragraph 16 provided that an order could not be challenged by legal proceedings, save in the circumstances identified in . .
Cited – F Hoffmann La Roche and Co A G v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry HL 1975
No Indemnity for misadministration
The Secretary of State sought an interlocutory injunction under the Act to restrain the appellant from charging prices in excess of those fixed by a statutory instrument he had made. The appellant argued that the statutory instrument was ultra . .
Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
See Also – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .

Cited by:
Overruled – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Doubted – Regina v Wicks HL 21-May-1997
Criminal proceedings, forming part of the general scheme of enforcement of planning control contained in Part VII of the Act, had been taken.
Held: The validity of a planning enforcement notice must be challenged in civil proceedings, not . .
See Also – Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 13-Dec-1994
A woman protester repeatedly climbed over the perimeter fencing into a military base.
Held: The defendant had a choice between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to be bound over had an immediate and obvious . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Local Government, Constitutional

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.187073

Taylor v Mucklow: QBD 1973

The court upheld a decision of magistrates who considered that a building owner was deploying an unreasonable use of force in equipping himself with a loaded airgun against a builder who was demolishing a new extension because his bills were unpaid.

[1973] Crim LR 750
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Bayer, Hart, Snook, and Whistance Admn 4-Nov-2003
The defendants protested the growing of genetically modified crops. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of aggravated trespass for them having entered a crop and attached themselves to tractors. The district judge decided they had genuine . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.187497

Foran v Regina: CACD 17 Oct 2014

The claimant appealed, on reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, against convictions in 1978 for robbery. He said that the conviction was based on confessions, later denied, taken by members of a police serious crime squad members of which later came to be severely criticised for malpractice.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The simple involvement of the squad was not enough to support an appeal. There had to be sufficient material such that had it been available at trial, a cross examination might have put a conviction at doubt.

Pitchford LJ, Dingemans, William Davis JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 2047
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537731

HM Advocate v McAllister: HCJ 7 Oct 2014

The defendant had been convicted of an offence of supplying drugs whilst on licence for a similar offence. The court considered a request for an order under the 2002 Act.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby
[2014] ScotHC HCJ – 112
Bailii
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 76, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 92
Scotland

Crime

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537446

Esprit and Others, v Regina: CACD 3 Oct 2014

The defendants sought leave to appeal against their convictions for robbery, and the Attorney-General appealed against sentences. The case was based largely on telephone call logs.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused to the defendants. The extent of circumstantial evidence was persuasive. Leave to appeal was granted to the Attorney-General and the sentences increased.

Fulford LJ, Wilkie, Laing DBE JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1918
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537323

Regina v Stingel: 1990

(High Court of Australia) An infatuated man had stabbed his former girlfriend’s lover.
Held: The judge had been right to withdraw the issue of provocation from the jury. Jealousy and possessiveness should not found a defence of provocation.

(1990) 171 CLR 312, 273 P 908, [1990] HCA 61, (1990) 97 ALR 1, (1990) 50 A Crim R 186, 65 ALJR 141
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Clinton, Regina v CACD 17-Jan-2012
Two defendants appealed from convictions for murder saying that the offences had arisen from a loss of self control in situations where wives partners had committed adultery. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.188892

Regina v George: CCA 1952

[1952] Crim LR 52
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Price CACD 18-Jul-2003
The appellant had been convicted of indecent assault. When inspecting an apartment as a prosective tenant, with the complainant, he had stroked her legs, outside her clothing and below the knee. He appealed saying this was insufficient to constitute . .
Cited – Regina v Court HL 1989
When considering whether an action constituted an indecent assault, the jury was to be asked whether ‘right-minded persons would consider the conduct indecent or not.’
Lord Ackner: ‘It was common ground before your Lordships, and indeed it is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.185750

The Secretary of State for Justice v A Local Authority and Others: CA 22 Oct 2021

Appeal from a decision that care workers would not commit a criminal offence under section 39 of the 2003 Act were they to make the practical arrangements for a 27 year old man to visit a sex worker in circumstances where he has capacity (within the meaning of the 2005 Act) to consent to sexual relations and decide to have contact with a sex worker but not to make the arrangements himself.
Otherwise: A Local Authority v C and others (Institute of Registered Case Managers and others intervening)

The Lord Burnett of Maldon,
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,
Lady Justice King,
And,
Lord Justice Baker
[2021] EWCA Civ 1527, [2021] WLR(D) 540, [2021] 3 WLR 1425
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences Act 2003 39, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales

Crime, Health Professions

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.668919

HT v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 11 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum and immigration – Rules on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees and the content of the protection granted – Revocation of a residence permit under Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC – Conditions – Concept of compelling reasons of national security or public order – Participation of a recognised refugee in the activities of a terrorist organisation

Sharpston AG
C-373/13, [2014] EUECJ C-373/13 – O, [2015] EUECJ C-373/13
Bailii, Bailii
Directive 2004/83/EC 24(1)

European, Immigration, Crime

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536725

Regina v Seymour: HL 1983

The court considered the relationship between the offences of manslaughter and causing death by reckless driving. The applicant argued that recklessness in a manslaughter case bore a different meaning from that which applied in respect of the statutory offence.
Held: Though rejecting that proposition, the House held that the degree of recklessness required for conviction of the statutory offence was less than that required for conviction of the common law crime of manslaughter. Lord Roskill said the jury was to perform the duty of assessing the degree of wickedness exhibited by the accused in order to decide which offence (if any) he has committed: ‘If any modification of the ‘Lawrence direction’ is appropriate in a case where manslaughter alone is charged, it would be to add a warning to the jury that before convicting of manslaughter they must be satisfied that the risk of death being caused by the manner of the accused’s driving was very high. Such a direction will, of course, always be necessary where the common law crime and the statutory offence are charged alternatively, but where, as in this case, the common law crime is charged alone, it may be unnecessary and inappropriate.’
Lord Roskill contrasted the culpability underlying the two offences: ‘Parliament must however be taken to have intended that ‘motor manslaughter’ should be a more grave offence than the statutory offence. While the former still carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life, Parliament has thought fit to limit the maximum penalty for the statutory offence to five years’ imprisonment, the sentence in fact passed by the learned trial judge upon the appellant upon his conviction for manslaughter. This difference recognises that there are degrees of turpitude which will vary according to the gravity of the risk created by the manner of a defendant’s driving. In these circumstances your Lordships may think that in future it will only be very rarely that it will be appropriate to charge ‘motor manslaughter’: that is where, as in the instant case, the risk of death from a defendant’s driving was very high.’ andwent on to answer the question certified for the House: ‘Where manslaughter is charged and the circumstances are that the victim was killed as a result of the reckless driving of the defendant on a public highway, the trial judge should give the jury the direction suggested in Reg. v Lawrence but it is appropriate also to point out that in order to constitute the offence of manslaughter the risk of death being caused by the manner of the defendant’s driving must be very high.’

Lord Roskill, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
[1983] 2 AC 493, [1983] 2 All ER 1058
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen PC 10-Jul-1985
Two hydrofoils collided, causing deaths. The officers were charged with manslaughter.
Held: The Board applied to the situation the law which had developed for road traffic accidents. . .
Cited – Brown v The Queen (Jamaica) PC 13-Apr-2005
A police officer appealed against his conviction for manslaughter after being involved in a road traffic accident. Two were killed. The policemen complained as to the direction given on gross negligence manslaughter.
Held: Adomako could not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.226126

Smith v Chief Superintendent, Woking Police Station: 1983

The defendant entered the garden of a private house and looked through the windows of the house occupied by the victim. She was terrified. The Justices concluded that the defendant had deliberately frightened the victim, and that that constituted an assault. He appealed his conviction under the 1824 Act s4 of being in an enclosed garden for an unlawful purpose, namely to assault the victim thereby causing her fear and shock.
Held: The defendant intended to frighten the victim and that she was frightened. It was contended by the defendant that an assault was the doing of act which intentionally or recklessly caused another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence; that the evidence was that the victim had not been caused to have such apprehension; and that there was no evidence upon which the Justices could say that the defendant had intended she should so apprehend. Kerr LJ: ‘The question of law is: ‘whether there was evidence upon which the magistrates’ court could conclude that the purpose of the defendant was to assault [Miss M] and consequently ‘an unlawful purpose’ within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act 1824.’

Kerr LJ
(1983) 76 Cr App R 234
Vagrancy Act 1824 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Hayes v Stephenson 1862
A defendant found in a park for the purpose of fornication was not guilty of the offence under the Act because fornication was not a criminal offence. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ireland CACD 14-May-1996
Silent telephone calls which resulted in psychiatric damage to the victim could constitute an ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ for the purposes of section 47 of the 1861 Act. Swinton Thomas LJ said: ‘The early cases pre-date the invention of . .
Cited – L v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Jul-2007
The defendant, a youth, apealed his conviction under the 1824 Act of being found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose.
Held: No unlawful purpose had been shown and the conviction was quashed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.235711

Hodgetts v Chiltern District Council: HL 1983

The House was asked as to an alleged offence of non-compliance with an enforcement notice under section 89(1) of the 1971 Act, and particularly: ‘Whether an information which alleges initial failure to comply with the provisions of an enforcement notice under section 89(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ‘on and since a certain date’ is bad for duplicity.’ The appellants were said to have used buildings as an office and for storage of builders’ materials in breach of an enforcement notice. The Crown Court was persuaded that section 89(5) created a continuing offence which occurred and repeated itself during the period of default and that since the information related to more than one day they were bad for duplicity.
Held: The House distinguished the two classes of enforcement notices to which section 89 gave rise, namely those which required the owner of the land to do something on it (‘do notices’) and secondly those which required the user of land to stop doing something on it (‘desist notices’).
Lord Roskill said: ‘It is not an essential characteristic of a criminal offence that any prohibited act or omission, in order to constitute a single offence, should take place once and for all on a single day. It may take place, whether continuously or intermittently, over a period of time. The initial offence created by sub-section (1) in the case of non-compliance with a ‘do notice’, is complete once and for all when the period for compliance with the notice expires . . ‘
The information charging the offence was ‘on and since May 27, 1980’ and was validly drafted and was not bad for duplicity. Having so decided, Lord Roskill went on to say this as to the practice of charging, by reference to s.89 (5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, on the basis of ‘on and since’ a specified date: ‘I see no objection to that practice, but it might be preferable if hereafter offences under the first limb of s.89 (5) were charged as having been committed between two specified dates, the termini usually being on the one hand the date when compliance with the enforcement notice first became due and on the other hand a date not later than when the information was hand, or of course some earlier date if meanwhile the enforcement notice had been complied with.’

Lord Roskill
[1983] 2 AC 120
Town and Country Planning Act 1971 89(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005
Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Planning

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.224233

Thompson v Nixon: QBD 1966

The court felt bound to follow the interpretation of the meaning of bailee in the 1916 Act from Matthews, even if, given the freedom to do so it would have interpreted it differently: ‘the present case falls four square within the decision in Reg v Matthews . . That case having been quoted in the textbooks ever since, no writer had ever suggested that it was bad law . . Dealing as we are today with a statute that affects the liberty of the subject, it does not seem to me that it is permissible to adopt a different construction of the relevant words to that which has so long stood as law, and now for the first time in effect to construe them adversely to the defendant in this case.’

Sachs J, Lord Parker CJ and Browne J
[1966] 1 QB 103
Larceny Act 1916
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Matthews CCCR 1873
(Court of Crown Cases Reserved) Interpretation of bailee in law of larceny. . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.223718

Information Commissioner v Islington London Borough Council: Admn 24 May 2002

The commissioner appealed a dismissal of her case against a council, complaining that the council knowingly or recklessly used personal data for the collection of council tax, for which registration had expired.
Held: It was not necessary to show that the individual officer making use of the data had been aware of the breach. The council itself was the legal person using the data. The knowledge and actions of the directing minds of a corporate body must be taken together with the actions of those to whom administrative functions were delegated. To hold otherwise would make it impossible for any large organisation to be prosecuted under the Act.

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett
Times 05-Jun-2002, Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin)
Bailii
Data Protection Act 1984 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Data Protection Registrar v Amnesty International (British Section) Admn 8-Nov-1994
The defendants had been charged with recklessly holding and then disclosing information about named individuals. It had exchanged a list of potential addressee’s for use in mailing lists with another charity.
Held: Recklessness is defined by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Crime

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.172182

Regina v Bowden (T): CACD 24 Feb 1995

The defendant, a maintenance manager, was accused of misconduct in public office. He had caused works to be carried out by other employees of the local authority on premises occupied by a friend when such works were not required under the authority’s repair policy. He said that as a local authority employee, and not being an employee of the Crown he could not commit the offence.
Held: He could. A local authority employee can commit the common law criminal offence of misconduct in public office. The defendant received a salary from public funds and was accountable for public funds. The offender was considered to be a public officer because he was ‘appointed to discharge a public duty and received compensation in whatever shape whether from the Crown or otherwise.’ The offence did not apply only to elected officials. The crime resembles the tort of misfeasance.

Independent 05-Apr-1995, Times 06-Mar-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 98, [1995] 4 All ER 505, 93/6974/X2
Local Government and Planning Act 1980 16, Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Henly v Lyme Corporation 1828
The plaintiff owned property by the sea. It was swamped by the tide because the corporation, who had been granted land by the Crown subject to a condition that it maintain the sea-defences of the cob, had ‘wrongfully and unjustly intending to . .
Cited – Regina v Llewellyn-Jones CACD 1968
The Registrar of a County Court was convicted of offences of misconduct in public office. The indictment charged ‘misbehaviour in a public office, contrary to common law’ and alleged that court orders had been made ‘with the intention of gaining . .
Cited – Regina v Hall 1891
On taking an office of trust concerning the public, a person makes himself answerable to the Crown irrespective of who they had been appointed by, and in what way the appointment arose. It is an ‘old principle that where an Act of Parliament creates . .
Cited – Rex v Whittaker 1914
The Court was asked whether the defendant, a regimentary colonel accused of receiving bribes in connection with the construction of a canteen, was a ‘public officer’ within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
Held: Lawrence J said: ‘A . .
Cited – Regina v Dytham CACD 1979
A constable was 30 yards away from the entrance to a club, from which he saw a man ejected. There was a fight involving cries and screams and the man was beaten and kicked to death in the gutter outside the club. The constable made no move to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) CACD 7-Apr-2004
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died.
Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Local Government

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.86175

Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1954

Half a dozen youths engaged in a fist fight with another group, but one of their number suddenly produced a knife and stabbed one of their opponents to death. One of the prosecution witnesses was a youth named Lawson. He gave evidence of an oral admission by the appellant after the event. One of the grounds of appeal was that the judge ought to have given the jury a warning that Lawson could be regarded as an accomplice, and therefore was someone whose evidence required to be treated with special caution. Lawson admitted being involved in the fight at some stage, but he denied all knowledge of a knife and there was no evidence that he was present when it was produced. He was initially charged with murder, but no evidence was offered against him.
Held: The others on his side who did not know that he had the knife, were not parties to its use and were not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
The House rejected the argument that an accomplice warning was required.
Lord Simonds defined what was meant by ‘accomplice’: ‘There is in the authorities no formal definition of the term ‘accomplice’; and your Lordships are forced to deduce a meaning for the word from cases in which X,Y and Z have been held to be, or held liable to be treated as accomplices. On the case it would appear that the following persons, if called as witnesses for the prosecution, have been treated as falling within the category:-
(1) On any view, persons who are participes criminis in respect of the actual crime charged, whether as principals or accessories before or after the fact (in felonies) or persons committing procuring or aiding and abetting (in the case of misdemeanours). This is surely the natural and primary meaning of the term ‘accomplice’. But in two cases, persons falling strictly outside the ambit of this category have, in particular decisions, been held to be accomplices for the purpose of the rule: viz:
(2) Receivers have been held to be accomplices of the thieves from whom they receive goods on a trial of the latter for larceny (Rex v Jennings (1912) 7 Cr App R 242; Rex v Dixon (1925) 19 Cr App R. 36)
(3) When X has been charged with a specific offence on a particular occasion, and evidence is admissible, and has been admitted, of having been committed crimes of this identical type on another occasion, as proving system and intent and negativing accidents; in such cases the court has held that in relation to such other similar offences, if evidence of them were given by parties to them, the evidence of such other parties should not be left to the jury without a warning that it is dangerous to accept it without corroboration. (Rex v Farid 91945) 30 Cr. App. R. 168)
In both of these cases (2) and (3) a person not a party or not necessarily a party to the substantive crime charged was treated as an accomplice for the purpose of the requirement of warning. (I say ‘not necessarily’ to cover the case of receivers. A receiver may on the facts of a particular case have procured the theft, or aided and abetted it, or may have helped to shield the thief from justice. But he can be a receiver without doing any of these things.) The primary meaning of the term ‘accomplice,’ then, has been extended to embrace these two anomalous cases. In each case there are special circumstances to justify or at least excuse the extension. A receiver is not only committing a crime intimately allied in character with that of theft: he could not commit the crime of receiving at all without the crime of theft having preceded it. The two crimes are in a relationship of ‘one-sided dependence.’ In the case of ‘system,’ the requirement of warning within the special field of similar crimes committed is a logical application within that collateral field of the general principle, though it involves a warning as to the evidence of persons not accomplices to the substantive crime charged’.
Lord Simonds continued: ‘My Lords, I have tried to define the term ‘accomplice.’ The branch of the definition relevant to this case is that which covers ‘participes criminis’ in respect of the actual crime charged, ‘whether as principals or accessories before or after the fact.’ But, it may reasonably be asked, who is to decide, or how is it to be decided, whether a particular witness was a ‘particeps criminis’ in the case in hand? In many or most cases this question answers itself, or, to be more exact, is answered by the witness in question himself, by confessing to participation, by pleading guilty to it, or by being convicted of it. But it is indisputable that there are witnesses outside these straightforward categories, in respect of whom the answer has to be sought elsewhere. The witnesses concerned may never have confessed, or may never have been arraigned or put on trial, in respect of the crime involved. Such cases fall into two classes. In the first, the judge can properly rule that there is no evidence that the witness was, what I will, for short, call a participant. The present case, in my view, happens to fall within this class, and can be decided on that narrow ground. But there are other cases within this field in which there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could find that a witness was a ‘participant.’ In such a case the issue of ‘accomplice vel non’ is for the jury’s decision: and a judge should direct them that if they consider on the evidence that the witness was an accomplice, it is dangerous for them to act on his evidence unless corroborated: though it is competent for them to do so if, after that warning, they still think fit to do so.’

Lord Simonds LC
[1954] CLY 700, [1954] 1 All ER 507, [1954] AC 378, (1854) 38 Cr App R 11, [1954] 2 WLR 343
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – 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 . .
Explained – Regina v Beck CACD 1982
The defendant complained that the judge had failed to direct the jury about the dangers of relying upon the evidence of witnesses who, though not co-defendants, had their own conflicting interests. They also said that corroborative evidence should . .
Cited – Rahman and Others, Regina v HL 2-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence . .
Cited – Krishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had directed the jury that he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.181015

Palmer and Others v Regina: CACD 7 Aug 2014

Three defendants appealed against convictions for selling stolen goods, saying that the police had used entrapment. The officers had established a shop at which thieves might expect to sell goods. Each defendant had pleaed guilty after a ruling against their allegation of abuse by officers. They said that officers had failed to comply with the requirements of the 2000 Act.
Held: The applications for leave to appeal were rejected. The remaining failures in disclosure had no effect. The balance of the appeal faced findings by the judge as to the effectiveness and proportionality of the operation. The actions alleged against the officers fell short of encouragement, and the judge having seen recordings of the events concluded that the appellants only vulnerability exploited was their greed.

Hallett LJ VP CACD, Andrew Smith J, Zeidman QC HHJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1681
Bailii
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 26
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Teixeira De Castro v Portugal ECHR 9-Jun-1998
Mr De Castro had been the target of an unwarranted, unauthorised, unsupervised police operation in which undercover officers incited him to supply drugs. He challenged a conviction for trafficking in heroin, based mainly on statements of two police . .
Cited – Regina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
Cited – Regina v Harmes and Another CACD 9-May-2006
The appellant Harmes ran a public house and was suspected of involvement in the distribution of Class A drugs and money laundering. An undercover police operation was launched and approved which lasted approximately 3 months. One of the undercover . .
Cited – Regina v Christou; Regina v Wright CACD 8-Jul-1992
Evidence which had been obtained by a police trick (false shop) was admissible. It’s use was not unfair. Lord Taylor CJ said that the defendants ‘voluntarily applied themselves to the trick’.
When assessing impact the court should assume that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535651

Regina v Heath: CACD 7 Oct 1999

The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His defence of duress failed at trial.
Held: The appeal failed. Kennedy LJ: ‘The appellant in evidence conceded that he had put himself in the position where he was likely to be subjected to threats. He was therefore, in our judgment, not entitled to rely on those same threats as duress to excuse him from liability for subsequent criminal conduct.’ The court found it possible to distinguish R v Baker and Ward, observing: ‘It is the awareness of the risk of compulsion which matters. Prior awareness of what criminal activity those exercising compulsion may offer as a possible alternative to violence is irrelevant.’

Kennedy LJ, Turner and Smedley JJ
[2000] Crim LR 109
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Baker and Ward CACD 31-Mar-1999
The appellants claimed that they had been specifically instructed to rob the particular store which they were convicted of robbing, and did so under duress. The trial judge had directed the jury: ‘A person cannot rely on the defence of duress if he . .
Leave – Regina v Heath CACD 25-May-1999
Renewed application for leave to appeal. The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Followed – Regina v Harmer CACD 12-Dec-2001
The defendant claimed duress saying that he had become indebted to his drugs supplier and had been forced to commit the crimes. He said he did not foresee that he might be required to commit crimes for the supplier.
Held: The court did not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.223671

Regina v Z: CACD 27 Feb 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction, saying the judge had misdirected the jury as to his defence of duress. He had worked as a driver and minder in an escort agency whose owner came to be associated with a man who claimed to him responsibility for three murders, and who forced him to carry out the offences.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The balance of authority was that there had to be an anticipation of pressure to commit the crime ‘of the type charged’. That was not an immutable phrase, but intended to direct the jury’s mind to ask whether the defendant’s association with the criminals would lead him against or with his will, to crime of the seriousness of that before the court.

Rix LJ, Crane J and Judge Maddison
Times 25-Mar-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 191, [2003] 1 WLR 1489
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Baker and Ward CACD 31-Mar-1999
The appellants claimed that they had been specifically instructed to rob the particular store which they were convicted of robbing, and did so under duress. The trial judge had directed the jury: ‘A person cannot rely on the defence of duress if he . .
Cited – Regina v Heath CACD 25-May-1999
Renewed application for leave to appeal. The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His . .

Cited by:
On Appeal from – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.180365

Regina v Heath: CACD 25 May 1999

Renewed application for leave to appeal. The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His defence of duress failed at trial.
Held: Granted. Duress arising from actions such as might invite that duress, was to be held to be voluntary duress, and so not to be available as a defence in criminal proceedings. The defendant had fallen into debt to a drug dealer who had sold on that debt to a third party who threatened the defendant unless he engaged in the offence. He was held to have put himself in that position voluntarily.

Kennedy LJ, Turner and Smedley JJ
Times 15-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1526
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Z CACD 27-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction, saying the judge had misdirected the jury as to his defence of duress. He had worked as a driver and minder in an escort agency whose owner came to be associated with a man who claimed to him responsibility for . .
Leave – Regina v Heath CACD 7-Oct-1999
The appellant claimed that he had become indebted to a drug supplier, and that he had been compelled by threats of physical violence to collect the consignment of drugs which gave rise to his conviction. His defence of duress failed at trial.
Crime

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.157926

Regina v Forbes (Giles): HL 20 Jul 2001

The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which made these unlawful and therefore prohibited were so different, he claimed it was necessary to have proved that he knew the nature of what he was importing.
Held: It was not necessary in that way. The prosecution must prove that he was importing goods subject to a prohibition, and his activities were directed at evading that prohibition. Lord Hutton: ‘The offence created by section 170(2)(b) of the 1979 Act is the offence of being ‘knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion … of any prohibition . . with respect to the goods’. The essence of the offence is being knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. The jury were fully entitled to find that the behaviour of the appellant satisfied them that he was knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. His behaviour in buying genuine video films of ‘Spartacus’ and ‘The Godfather Part 2′ in the airport shop at Amsterdam Airport and obtaining receipts for them, leaving the genuine video films in the lavatory at Heathrow, and then producing the receipts which appeared to relate to the two video films containing indecent material, pointed quite clearly to the conclusion that he knew that he was involved in the evasion of a prohibition against importation.’

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hutton
Times 20-Jul-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] UKHL 40, [2002] 2 AC 512, [2001] Crim LR 906, [2002] 1 Cr App R 1, [2001] 3 WLR 428, [2001] 4 All ER 97
Bailii, House of Lords
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b), Customs Consolidation Act 1876 42, Obscene Publications Act 1959 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise 1987
Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are ‘liable to forfeiture’ under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be . .
Approved – Regina v Hussain CACD 1969
The only mens rea necessary for proof of any offence of importing drugs was the knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. The accused must know ‘that what is on foot is the evasion of a prohibition against importation . .
Cited – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led . .
Cited – Regina v Taaffe HL 1984
For the purpose of section 170(2) of the 1979 Act a defendant must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be, such matter being an integral part of the inquiry as to whether he was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition . .

Cited by:
Cited – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 26-Jul-2005
The defendant argued that the 2003 Act was in breach of his article 8 rights. He had been registered as a sex offender, but the offence for which he had been convicted involved no proof of intention.
Held: The claimant having brought the . .
See Also – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.88459