Category: Crime

Fernando v Sathananthan: Admn 19 Mar 2021

Whether the actions of the appellant were carried out in ‘the exercise of his functions’ as a member of the Sri Lankan mission in London, and, accordingly, whether he has continuing functional immunity from prosecution, after departure from the United Kingdom, by virtue of article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Judges:

ir Julian Flaux Chancellor of the High Court and Mrs Justice McGowan

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 652 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.659861

Dillion, Regina v: CACD 11 Apr 2019

Appeal from conviction of acting in breach of a restraining order, contrary to section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (count 1) and making threats to kill, contrary to section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 2).

Judges:

Goose J

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 853

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 16, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 595

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.639254

Mehta v Regina: CACD 31 Dec 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. His co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator had been acquitted.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. The defence knew that they were going to have to deal with the prosecution’s case that the appellant’s relationship to Murphy regarding the Murphy-related transactions was one of mutual dishonesty. It was throughout accepted by the defence that if the appellant was dishonestly involved in one or more of the Murphy transactions, he was guilty of conspiracy. That was the reason for the prosecution’s original decision to proceed on a single conspiracy count. The appellant’s case was that he himself acted honestly but he was duped by Murphy. The judge put that case to the jury and they disbelieved it.
However leave was given to appeal against the sentence imposed.
Toulson LJ summarised central legal principles in this context, as follows: ‘The authorities establish the following propositions: 1. A conspiracy requires that the parties to it have a common unlawful purpose or design.
2. A common design means a shared design. It is not the same as similar but separate designs.
3. In criminal law (as in civil law) there may be an umbrella agreement pursuant to which the parties enter into further agreements which may include parties who are not parties to the umbrella agreement. So, A and B may enter into an umbrella agreement pursuant to which they enter into a further agreement between A, B and C, and a further agreement between A, B and D, and so on. In that example, C and D will not be conspirators with each other.’

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Langstaff J, Boney QC

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Meyrick and Ribuffi CCA 1929
The first count of the indictment alleged that the former police sergeant Goddard and the: ‘two appellants on divers days between the 1st October 1924 and the 24th November 1928 in the County of London, conspired together, and with one Anna Gadda, . .
Cited – Regina v Griffiths and Others CCA 1965
A supplier of lime and his employee were accused of conspiring with seven farmers to defraud the Ministry by submitting excessive subsidy claims. They were also charged with fraudulently obtaining money from the Ministry. There was no evidence that . .
Cited – Regina v Greenfield CACD 1973
Where a general conspiracy is charged in a single count, it is not bad for duplicity only because the evidence offered to prove it includes proof of the subsidiary conspiracies entered into in carrying out the general conspiracy. Duplicity is a . .
Cited – Regina v Barnard CACD 1980
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to steal. He said that the judge had wrongly allowed evidence to go to the jury of a conspiracy to rob of which he was not part.
A jeweller had been robbed by three men armed with an . .
Cited – Mintern v Regina CACD 21-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Ahmed Ali and Others, Regina v CACD 19-May-2011
Defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to murder on allegations of intended terrorism. In essence they complained of having been tried twice on substantially the same facts. The court accepted that a defendant who was . .

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 . .
Cited – Bhatti and Others v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2015
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law, saying that they had been based on evidence obtained by the police from credit reference agencies in breach of their rights under the 1984 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467717

Neale v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 23 Feb 2021

Appeals by way of the case stated from conviction by the justices of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The wilful obstruction alleged in the charge against the appellant was his refusal to give his name and address to a police officer when the officer requested that information in order to issue a fixed penalty notice to the appellant, pursuant to the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 658 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Crime

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.661922

Perry v Chief Constable of Humberside Police: Admn 18 Oct 2012

The defendant appealed against an anti-social behaviour order. He had been a journalist, and began a private newsletter and campaign alleging amongst other things corruption in the police. He complained that his article 10 rights had been infringed.
Held: The order was quashed. Pitchford LJ said: ‘that separate issues arise out of these blogs. In the blogs, as I have made clear from the District Judge’s review of the evidence, the appellant claimed that various figures in the village had been guilty of corruption and perverting the course of justice. The appellant did not lead any evidence to support those charges, but the blogs did not incite or threaten violence or disorder. They could not reasonably have given rise to the suspicion that the appellant would resort to threats of violence or disorder. The district judge did not so find. The mere fact that a blog may contain material that is untrue or even defamatory or, as the District Judge put it, damaging to the reputation of the people of whom he spoke may justify the civil courts in making an injunction, a breach of which may be a contempt of court punishable with imprisonment, but in deciding whether or not the statutory criteria for these purposes are met, it seems to me that the District Judge put far too much weight upon the fact that the allegations which the appellant made in the blog were uncorroborated or, as he put it, ‘totally unsubstantiated’. ‘
and ‘I appreciate that District Judges in determining these applications must be allowed a wide measure of appreciation. This court should not interfere unless the order made is one which could not reasonably have been made on the evidence adduced. In my judgment, the District Judge far too readily accepted the assertion made by each of the complainants that they had suffered harassment, alarm or distress. More is required than repeating this mantra in each witness statement. It seems to me that the entries on the blog and the physical contacts such as there were between the appellant and those whom he targeted were offensive and tiresome, it is even possible that they could properly be described as amounting to anti-social behaviour but I do not think that the high threshold set by the statutory criteria was met at all.’

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3226 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(1), Criminal Procedure Rules 64.6, European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Media

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466541

Regina v Manley: 1933

The appellant had falsely alleged that she had been robbed by a man whose description she gave to the police. It was the description of an imaginary man. She had been convicted of unlawfully effecting a public mischief.
Held: Lord Hewart CJ said: ‘In the opinion of the court the indictment aptly describes two ingredients of public mischief or prejudice to the community, one of these being that officers of the Metropolitan Police were lead to devote their time and services to the investigation of an idle charge the other being that members of the public or at any rate those of them who answered a certain description were put in peril of suspicion and arrest.’

Judges:

Lord Hewart CJ

Citations:

[1933] 1 KB 529

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: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.383662

Arundel’s And Barker’s Case: 1830

The fact of stolen property being found in a person’s house, is not evidence that that person stole it, if circumstances tend to shew that, it was stolen by other persons ; but it may be evidence of receiving.

Citations:

[1830] EngR 17, (1830) 1 Lewin 115, (1830) 168 ER 981 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.320897

Rex v Button: 1848

The defendants were charged with conspiracy to use their employers’ vats and dyes to dye articles which they were not entitled to dye, to secure profits for themselves and so to defraud their employer of profit. There was no false pretence and no deceit of their employer by inducing him to believe something to be true which was false.

Judges:

Crompton J

Citations:

(1848) 3 Cox CC 229

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: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.324669

Regina v Sinclair: 1968

The defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud a company, its shareholders and creditors by fraudulently using its assets for purposes other than those of the company and by fraudulently concealing such use.
Held: James J said: ‘To cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the prejudice of another person’s proprietary right’.

Judges:

James J

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1246

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: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.324674

Regina v Quinn: 1898

The defendants were convicted of conspiring to cheat and defraud the Great Northern Railway of Ireland of fares by abstracting return half tickets and selling them to members of the public.
Held: There was no deceit of their employers.

Citations:

[1898] 19 Cox CC 78

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: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.324672

Regina v Shanks: CACD 19 Mar 2003

The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had directed the jury properly as to the conviction for possession of a firearm with intent: ‘the Judge dealt with the matter fairly, correctly identifying the precise charge of which the first jury had convicted the appellant and its relevance to the issue of the appellant’s intent when he set out to find Miss Fletcher on the day that he killed her. He also submitted that the prosecution’s case and evidence as to intent at the material time were overwhelming, instancing: the appellant’s careful and deliberate preparation of the rifle for use, his stowage of it in the boot of his car, his conduct and movements preceding his final fatal confrontation with Miss Fletcher, his deliberate and well-aimed shooting of her in two separate bursts of fire and his conduct afterwards. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Crane The Hon Mr Justice Gray

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 680

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bentham and Others 1973
Whether possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life was a continuing offence: ‘The mischief at which the Section is aimed must be that of a person possessing a firearm ready for use, if and when the occasion arises, in a manner which . .
Cited – Regina v Harris CACD 19-Apr-2000
The purpose of section 74(3) was ‘not to define or enlarge the circumstances in which evidence is admissible of the fact that an accused has committed an offence, but simply to assist in the mode of proof of that fact (which it does in section 75): . .
Cited – Regina v Robertson and Golder CACD 1987
The court considered the words ‘any issue in those proceedings’ as contained in the section.
Held: The provision should be used only sparingly. . .
Cited – Regina v Kempster CACD 1990
Staughton LJ discussed the admission against a defendant of the fact of a co-defendant’s conviction: ‘On the more general question whether, if objection had been taken under section 78, the evidence should have been excluded, we have paid particular . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
See Also – Regina v Thomas Shanks Admn 13-Jan-1999
Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents. . .
Cited – Regina v Clarke CACD 30-Jan-1995
There were no special rules for the admission of evidence by computerised facial mapping. The ultimate gatekeepers on the admission of evidence of previous convictions are the rules on similar fact evidence. . .
Cited – Regina v Hillier and Farrar CACD 1993
The defendant in question had not give evidence.
Held: The correct approach to be followed by the judge was: ‘What the jury needed to be reminded of in his defence was relevant matter contained in his pre-trial statements and interviews with . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Thomas Shanks Admn 13-Jan-1999
Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.180335

Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited v Curtin; Watson; British Union for Abolition of Vivisection; Animal Liberation Front; Animal Rights Coalition and London Animal Action: CA 15 Oct 1997

The various defendants were accused of protesting repeatedly at the activities of the claimants, who sought orders under the Act to stop their protests as harassment.
Held: The Act was misused by trying to use it outside the areas intended; courts will interpret the Act restrictively. The plaintiffs had had difficulty identifying the perpetrators. Burris could have been used to obtain relief alternatively. The presumption in the Interpretation Act that ‘person’ includes ‘bodies corporate’ should prevail.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Thorpe

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2486

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 7(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burris v Azadani CA 27-Jul-1995
The court addressed the principles upon which a Court will grant interlocutory injunctive relief in harassment cases.
Held: Both the High Court and the County Court had jurisdiction under the 1981 and 1984 Acts to grant interlocutory . .

Cited by:

Not Binding – Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski QBD 28-Jun-2002
The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been accused under the Act of harassing the company and its employees.
Held: The act was intended to be used to protect individuals, and not companies. Two incidents were alleged, but no . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski QBD 28-Jun-2002
The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been accused under the Act of harassing the company and its employees.
Held: The act was intended to be used to protect individuals, and not companies. Two incidents were alleged, but no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142884

Press Association, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridge Crown Court: CACD 21 Nov 2012

The Association complained that an order preventing the naming of a defendant after his conviction so as to protect the identity of the complainant was made in excess of the court’s jurisdiction.

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2434

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Media

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465946

BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another: CA 19 Nov 2012

The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007.
Held: The case failed on the article 6 issue because (i) the decision to deport the appellant did not involve a determination of his civil rights and (ii) the grant of bail pending deportation (being ancillary to the deportation) did not do so either.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Hallett, McFarlane LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1499

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Maaouia v France ECHR 5-Oct-2000
A deportation order, made against a Tunisian, was eventually quashed by the French Administrative Court and the Article 6 complaints related to the length of time taken in the proceedings. The Court’s reasoning why Article 6 does not apply to . .
Cited – Ferrazzini v Italy ECHR 12-Jul-2001
(Grand Chamber) The court had to decide whether tax proceedings brought by the state against an individual involved the determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6(1). It was argued by the Government that the existence of an . .
Cited – BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 2-Nov-2007
The applicant had been made subject to orders restricting his freedom, being suspected of involvement with terrorist activity.
Held: He should be granted bail, but subject to stringent conditions. . .
Cited – Pomiechowski v The District Court In Legnica, 59-220 Poland Admn 9-Nov-2012
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465879

Taitt v The State: PC 8 Nov 2012

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law showed that he was not unable to assist and contribute to his defence. However the question of whether the execution of a person with such low intelligence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, had not yet been settled in Carribbean jurisdictions, and had been doubted in the US. Leave would be given to appeal on this aspect.

Citations:

[2012] UKPC 38

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
Cited – Rex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
Cited – Regina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
Cited – Hamilton and Another v The Queen PC 16-Aug-2012
(Jamaica) The Board emphasised the need for the use of procedures designed to speed criminal appeals. . .
Cited – Brown v The State PC 7-Feb-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board expressed its concern at the fact that reports as to the appellant’s ability to instruct counsel were produced ex post facto and without any explanation as to why medical evidence on the issue of fitness had not been . .
Cited – John M, Regina v CACD 14-Nov-2003
The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465694

Zinga and Another v Regina: CACD 7 Nov 2012

The appellants challenged the manner in which search warrants had been obtained against them.

Judges:

Rafferty LJ, McCombe, Thirlwall JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2357

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465629

Pope v Regina: CACD 1 Nov 2012

A woman had been murdered. Her husband was acquitted, and the present appellant then charged and convicted. His appeal succeeded, and a retrial ordered. He now appealed against his second conviction. The defendant now appealed, saying that there remained a ‘lurking doubt’.
Held: The appeal failed. The verdict of the jury was entirely supported by the evidence. The Court could find no basis for concluding that this conviction should be quashed by the application of the ‘lurking doubt’ concept identified in Cooper.

Judges:

Igor Judge, Baron Judge LCJ, Wilkie, Singh JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2241, [2013] 1 Cr App R 14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Cooper (Sean) CACD 1969
The court considered its power to interfere with a jury’s verdict where a trial had been properly conducted: ‘every issue was before the jury and in which the jury was properly instructed, and, accordingly, a case in which this court will be very . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465627

JM and Another, Regina v: CACD 7 Nov 2012

Prosecution appeal under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with the leave of the trial judge, against the ruling given at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court on 13th March 2012 that taking the prosecution case at its highest, it would not be open to the jury to convict either respondent of manslaughter.
Held: It was not the case on a charge of affray resulting in involuntary mansaughter to show that where the deceased had been involved in the fighting which constituted the affray, the defendant should have foreseen any specific harm to the victim at all. It has to be shown only that reasonable and sober people would have recognised that the defendants’s unlawful actions would unavoidably subject the victim to the risk of some harm resulting from those activities.

Judges:

Igor Judge, Baron Judge LCJ, Evans, Thirlwall JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2293, [2013] 1 Cr App R 10, [2013] Crim LR 335, [2013] 1 WLR 1083, [2012] WLR(D) 320

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465625

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smylie: CANI 17 Oct 2012

The Director appeled by case stated against the allowing of the defendant’s appeal against his conviction for permitting the consumption of intoxicating liquor in public house premises other than during permitted hours

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2012] NICA 45

Links:

Bailii

Northern Ireland, Crime, Licensing

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465419

Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate: HCJ 5 Jun 2009

The appellants were charged with murder. They appealed against an extension of time given to allow the prosecution to proceed.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Carloway, Lord Clarke, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Citations:

2013 SCL 7, [2012] HCJAC 137, 2012 GWD 36-725, [2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 137

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another SCS 17-Jul-2009
Decision as to preliminary issues raised. . .
See also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 14-Jan-2010
. .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 2-Jul-2010
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 8-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 19-Apr-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465378

Passmore, Regina v: CACD 18 Jun 2007

P was claiming housing and council tax benefit. He had been convicted of dishonestly failing to give prompt notification of ‘a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to any benefit or other payment or advantage under the relevant social security legislation’, contrary to section 111A. The court was asked the meaning of the phrase ‘a change of circumstances affecting any entitlement of his to . . benefit’.
Held: The change of circumstances must have made a difference to the amount of benefit which the recipient was entitled to claim in order for it to be characterised properly as a change of circumstances affecting his entitlement to benefit.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 2053, [2008] 1 Cr App R 165

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992 111A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Regina v Lancaster CACD 2-Mar-2010
Whether Ommission Significant on Benefits Claim
The defendant appealed against his conviction for false accounting. He had been claiming council tax benefit and housing benefit, but had failed to notify the council of a change in his circumstances.
Held: The appeal failed. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.259774

Regina v Smith: CACD 2 Apr 2003

The defendant had been convicted of rape and of burglary with intent to rape. The only evidence was his confession. After other appeals failed, and he had been released, psychiatric reports were obtained. Each has concluded that there are serious doubts as to the reliability of those confessions.
Held: The new evidence was credible and would have been admissible. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell Mrs Justice Rafferty Mr Justice Grigson

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 927

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v O’Brien; Regina v Hall; Regina v Sherwood CACD 16-Feb-2000
It is proper for the court to admit psychiatric evidence of a defendant’s particular readiness to make false confessions. Such evidence should however be closely circumscribed, and should include for example, that it makes the evidence gained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.180457

Mohammed, Regina v; Regina v Osman: CACD 16 Oct 2007

When a court considered a case involving a question of whether an asylum applicant who had arrived in the UK without documents or with false documents, it had to balance properly the need for control over entry with the stark realities which faced a person fleeing persecution.
Held: section 2(13) did not define a ‘false immigration document’ by contrast with an ‘immigration document’. Rather, a ‘false immigration document’ was a sub-species of an ‘immigration document’. In that way the reference in section 2(4)(c) encompassed both a genuine and a false immigration document. The immigrant is required to provide a reasonable excuse for not providing any immigration document. Section 4(2)(d) enables an immigrant to produce a false immigration document and prove he used it for the whole of his journey to the United Kingdom. If either a valid or false immigration document has been destroyed or disposed of the immigrant must prove that he had reasonable grounds for doing so. Section 2(4)(e) provides a defence for the immigrant who proves that he travelled to the United Kingdom never in possession of an immigration document (whether genuine or false).

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P QBD, Elias, Griffith Williams JJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 2332, Times 17-Dec-2007, [2008] 1 WLR 1130

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 2(1)

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

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.260055

George, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 Oct 2012

The claimant had had indefinite leave to remain. He was convicted of a serious offence and ordered to be deported. He successfully appealed against that order, but now said that the effect of that was to revive his indefinite leave to remain.
Held: His appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Stanley Burnton LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1362, [2012] WLR(D) 290, [2013] Imm AR 197, [2013] 1 WLR 1319, [2013] INLR 281

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – George v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 9-Dec-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain after successfully appealing against a deportation order.
Held: The claim failed. Bidder QC J said: ‘the wording of section 5 is tolerably clear and . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – George, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Mar-2014
The court was asked: ‘If a criminal who previously had leave to remain in this country is liable to deportation because of his offences, but cannot actually be deported because to remove him would infringe his rights under the European Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Crime

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465111

Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administracion Del Estado: ECJ 4 Oct 2012

ECJ Opinion – Combating of money laundering and terrorism financing – Directive 2005/60/EC – Obligation on credit institutions to declare suspicious financial transactions – Institutions operating under the freedom to provide services – Identification of national financial information unit responsible for collecting information – Interpretation of Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60 – Restriction on the freedom to provide services – Overriding reasons in the public interest – Appropriateness of national legislation for attaining aims in view – Proportionality

Judges:

Bot AG

Citations:

C-212/11, [2012] EUECJ C-212/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2005/60/EC

Cited by:

Opinion – Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administracion Del Estado ECJ 25-Apr-2013
ECJ Judgment – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing – Directive 2005/60/EC – Article 22(2) – Decision 2000/642/JHA – Requirement to report . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Banking, Crime

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464807

Calvert v Regina: CACD 9 Oct 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual offences against his step-daughter. Ther ewas evidence of consensual sexual activity between tem after she had reaced adulthood.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had properly directed the jury as to the possibility of his dominance over the complainant so as to explain the later behaviour without contradicting the earlier complaints.

Judges:

Lord Judge LCJ, Mackay, Dobbs JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2034

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464758

Gul (H) v Regina: CACD 31 Jul 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for conveying ‘List A’ articles into prison. He said that the proceedings had been a nullity for failure to comply with the requirements of Schedule 3 of the 1998 Act. He had not been notified of the possibility of making representations.
Held: The appeal failed. The definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 did operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter-governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict.

Judges:

Igor Judge, Baron Judge LCJ, Mackay, Sweeney JJ

Citations:

[2013] 1 WLR 1136, [2012] WLR(D) 245, [2013] 1 Cr App R 4, [2013] Crim LR 67, [2012] EWCA Crim 1761

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prison Act 1952 40(1)(b), Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464570