Category: Crime

Duffy v PF Glasgow: HCJ 24 Jul 2014

The defendant appealed against his conviction for assaulting his wife, saying he had acted in self defence.
Held: CCTV showed that he had opportunity to escape rather than assault her.

Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young, Sheriff Principal Lockhart
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 81
Bailii
Scotland

Crime

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535262

Feeney v PF Paisley: HCJ 24 Jul 2014

A shop-owner appealed by case stated against his conviction for allowing alcohol to be sold to a person under 18.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘while the justice’s personal view was that a more robust practice should have been in place, the fact is that on the evidence this was apparently a one-off incident, of which the appellant was unaware at the time, and also there was a system in place to prevent underage buying or selling of alcohol. Both sections 103 and 107 of the 2005 Act permit a defence of ‘due diligence’ in terms of section 141A of that Act.’

Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young, Sheriff Principal Lockhart
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 84
Bailii
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 103
Scotland

Crime

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535263

Sylka v Poland (Dec): ECHR 3 Jun 2014

ECHR Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Applicability of no significant disadvantage admissibility criterion in freedom of expression case: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant was stopped in his car by police officers for not wearing a seat belt. A dispute ensued in which the applicant allegedly told the officers that he would not ‘descend to their level’. He was subsequently charged with insulting police officers in the course of their duty. He was convicted at first instance and fined. On appeal, however, the conviction was quashed and the criminal proceedings discontinued for a probationary period of one year. In addition, the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 125 to a local fostering service and EUR 25 in costs.
In his application to the European Court he complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.
Law – Article 35 – 3 (b): The Convention did not limit the application of the ‘no significant disadvantage’ admissibility criterion to any particular right protected under the Convention. However, in cases concerning freedom of expression the application of this criterion had to take due account of the importance of that freedom and be subject to careful scrutiny by the Court. Such scrutiny should encompass elements such as the contribution made to a debate of general interest and whether the case involved the press or other news media.
The seriousness of an alleged violation had to be assessed by taking into account the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake in the case. The Court was ready to accept that individual perceptions encompassed not only the monetary aspect of a violation, but also the general interest of the applicant in pursuing the case, and that the issue at stake in the instant case was clearly of subjective importance to the applicant. With regard to the objective aspect, however, the decision to conditionally discontinue the criminal proceedings did not amount to a conviction, and the information about the proceedings entered in the National Criminal Register would have been removed after 18 months. The applicant had not submitted any information indicating that the proceedings had been resumed during that period or that the information on the Register had affected him adversely in any tangible way. Furthermore, the financial implications (EUR 150 in aggregate) could not represent a particular hardship for the applicant, who was an entrepreneur. In sum, there were no objective grounds to hold that the applicant had suffered important adverse consequences as a result of the decision to conditionally discontinue the proceedings.
The subject matter of the complaint did not give rise to an important matter of principle (contrast, Berladir and Others v. Russia, 34202/06, 10 July 2012). It concerned an unfortunate verbal confrontation with no wider implications or public interest undertones which might raise real concerns under Article 10 of the Convention. As such, it could be distinguished from a case such as Eon v. France (26118/10, 14 March 2013, Information Note 161, in which the Court rejected a preliminary objection of lack of significant disadvantage having regard to the national debate in France on whether the offence of insulting the head of State should remain a criminal offence and the wider issue of the compatibility of that offence with the Convention).
In the circumstances, the applicant in the instant case had not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention. Since the remaining two elements of the admissibility requirement were satisfied (respect for human rights did not require an examination of the case and the case had been duly considered by a domestic tribunal) the application was inadmissible.
Conclusion: inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).

19219/07 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 811
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535180

Polyflor Ltd v Health and Safety Executive: CACD 18 Jul 2014

The company appealed against its conviction for failing so far as reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of its employees. It said that the judge should have acceeded to a submission of no case to answer.

Fulford LJ, Foskett J, Neil Ford QC
[2014] EWCA Crim 1522
Bailii
Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974
England and Wales

Crime, Health and Safety

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534640

Opinion of The Court Delivered By The Lord Justice Clerk In Note of Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence By Kilpatrick Against Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 15 Jul 2014

Appeal against conviction alleging: ‘conduct yourself in a disorderly manner and did post a message which was of an offensive and threatening nature to a social network site to which the public had access and commit a breach of the peace’.’ He had made a posting on Facebook whose words incited violence.
Held: ‘The jury rejected the idea that the conduct was ‘just banter’ and not genuinely alarming and seriously disturbing etc. It follows from that, that the amendment did not change the character of the offence or the nature of the facts libelled. All that the offence consisted of, in terms of the libel in its original or amended form, was the posting of this particular message on Facebook. The question remained simply whether that amounted to a breach of the peace. The appeal against conviction is refused.’

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Brodie, Lord Philip
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 73
Bailii

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534364

Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead v Cameron: SCSf 18 Jun 2014

Summary prosecution on a complaint libelling one charge of contravening section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licencing (Scotland) Act 2010. The charge is that the accused on 4 September 2013 in the course of a journey by road behaved in an abusive or threatening manner by uttering offensive and threatening sexual remarks about a member of staff of Aberdeenshire Council Social Work.

Sheriff Philip Mann
[2014] ScotSC 22
Bailii
Scotland

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534217

Midgley v Regina: CACD 11 Jul 2014

The defendant appealed against convictions for indecency with a child, saying there was new evidence. The jury had enquired as to the absence of evidence from a particular witness.
Held: The new evidence from the witness was heard. Though helpfu it was not conclusive, and in any ecent: ‘ the Judge gave the conventional direction that they should confine their consideration to the evidence which they heard and should not speculate about evidence that they had not heard. We do not consider that a Jury note of this kind should ordinarily give rise to an appeal based on an application to call the evidence to which the Jury question is directed.’
Even so, the sentence was excessive for an historical offence and was reduced accordingly.

Gross LJ, Simon, Burnett JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1421
Bailii
Sexual Offences Act 1956 1491)
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534113

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.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Henriques , Gloster DBE
[2012] EWCA Crim 2, [2012] 3 WLR 515, [2013] QB 1, [2012] Crim LR 539, [2012] 2 All ER 947, [2012] 1 Cr App R 26
Bailii
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54 55, Homicide Act 19573
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.450290

Rex v Harris: CCR 1836

The defendant bit a woman’s nose. He was accused of wounding her. The prosecution argued, using the expression unius est exclusio alterius rule that it was akin to a ‘stab, cut or wound’
Held: The defendant should be acquitted. The words suggested an intention that any injury must be inflicted by means of some weapon and this did not include the use of parts of the body.

(1836) CCR
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.200607

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 characteristics of the defendant when asking whether the provocation was such as to make a reasonable person lose his self-control. The Homicide Act 1953 had changed the common law position. Once there was evidence of a subjective loss of self-control which had been provoked, then the question of whether the loss of control was objectively reasonable was one for the jury.
Lord Hoffman described the history of the defence of provocation, saying that it: ‘comes from a world of Restoration gallantry in which gentlemen habitually carried lethal weapons, acted in accordance with a code of honour which required insult to be personally avenged by instant angry retaliation . . (t)o show anger ‘in hot blood’ for a proper reason . . was not merely permissible but the badge of a man of honour.’

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough
Times 04-Aug-2000, Gazette 28-Sep-2000, [2000] UKHL 49, [2001] 1 AC 146, [2001] 1 Cr App R 31, [2000] 4 All ER 289, [2000] 3 WLR 654
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Homicide Act 1957 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camplin HL 1978
The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should . .
Cited – Regina v Morhall HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation.
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Welsh 1869
The judge directed the jury as to provocation saying that in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter, there should have been serious provocation, ‘something which might naturally cause an ordinary and reasonably minded man to lose his self-control . .
Cited – Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1954
B appealed against his conviction for murder. The victim, a prostitute, had taunted the accused, then 18, for his impotence. The accused was in fact impotent.
Held: The jury had properly been directed to consider whether a reasonable man who . .
Cited – Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen PC 2-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) On a trial for murder the defendant relied on the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation. Medical evidence showed the defendant suffered from brain damage and was prone to respond to minor provocation by losing his . .

Cited by:
Cited – Martin v Regina CACD 30-Oct-2001
The defendant had shot a burglar who had entered his isolated home at night. He claimed self defence, but the burglar appeared to have been shot as he retreated. A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he . .
Cited – Regina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
Applied – Regina v Rowland CACD 12-Dec-2003
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He sought to have substituted a conviction for manslaughter following Smith, and in the light of evidence as to his mental characteristics.
Held: ‘in the context of the law of provocation, the . .
Cited – Regina v Jenkins and Another CACD 14-Feb-2002
The decision in Smith (Morgan) does not prevent use of the expression ‘the reasonable man’ in the judge’s summing-up, in Weller, when considering how a jury should be directed on provocation, the court plainly regarded the relevant question as being . .
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 . .
Wrongly Decided – Her Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley PC 15-Jun-2005
(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions . .
Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Not preferred – Mohammed, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2005
The court granted permission to appeal against a conviction for murder on grounds that related to the judge’s summing up in respect of provocation: ‘Although Holley is a decision of the Privy Council and Morgan Smith a decision of the House of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.159083

Kingston and Others v Regina: CACD 9 Jul 2014

The defendants, former police officers appealed against convictions saying that the principal prosecution witness had since been shown to be corrupt as a result of the Lawrence Inquiry.
Held: The appeal failed. The witness: ‘was at the time of the Appellants’ trial known to be devious, a skilled liar, out to advance his own position where he thought he could, and capable of prodigious feats of recall. The addition to that opprobrium of one allegation against Davidson, once explored, would not in the scheme of things have been of the significance necessary to cast doubt upon the safety of their convictions.’

Rafferty DBE LJ, Burnett, Holroyde JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1420
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533947

Fitzpatrick and Others v The Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock: HCJ 8 Jul 2014

The defendants appealed against their convictions of forming a fraudulent scheme to defraud Transport Scotland. They were bus drivers and: ‘The modus operandi of the scheme involved scanning lost or stolen concessionary travel cards into Harte Buses’ electronic ticket machines, thus creating fictitious trips. Harte Buses then received payment for those fictitious trips from Transport Scotland.’
Held: The appeals succeeded with various difficulties revealed.

Lady Paton
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 69
Bailii

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533865

Jones v Regina: CACD 4 Jul 2014

Application for an extension of time of 27 days for the renewal of an application for a further extension of time of 4 years and 6 months within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. It was said that the appellant had, by threats and inducement, attempted to persuade a witness to absent herself as a witness from the trial of five defendants for murder and to make a false statement to a solicitor. Other evidence had later emerged that the police themselves had evidence to undermine the safety of te witness’s evidence.
Held: The appeal was allowed, with no order for any retrial.

Pitchford LJ, Turner, Carr DBE JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1337
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533800

MO, Regina v: CCNI 17 Oct 2013

Belfast – ‘The twenty eight charges against this defendant, Wu Pu Paul Mo, are each of converting criminal property contrary to Section 327(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The particulars of each offence allege that he converted criminal property by purchasing bankers drafts from monies held in one of five accounts in his name, the drafts being, in almost every case, drawn in favour of Hon Yau Cheung, the sole exception (Count 28) being a draft drawn in favour of Siu Ling Mo, who is the sister of the defendant and the wife of Mr Cheung. The drafts are alleged to have been purchased on diverse dates beginning on the 8th of August 2003 and ending on the 2nd of July 2010. ‘

Weir J
[2013] NICC 25
Bailii

Northern Ireland, Crime

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533155

Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Jul 2012

Appeal against conviction for sending a message by a public telecommnication network said to be of a menacing character. The appellant’s flight was delayed at Doncaster airport. He tweeted ‘I had decided to resort to terrorism’ and ‘Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!’ The officers originally involved had seen it as nothing more that a foolish comment, but he was charged on the advice of the CPS.
Held: The use of Twitter was the use of a public telecommunication network. However: ‘The 2003 Act did not create some newly minted interference with the first of President Roosevelt’s essential freedoms – freedom of speech and expression. Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by this legislation.’ and ‘the more one reflects on it, the clearer it becomes that this message did not represent a terrorist threat, or indeed any other form of threat. It was posted on ‘Twitter’ for widespread reading, a conversation piece for the appellant’s followers, drawing attention to himself and his predicament. Much more significantly, although it purports to address ‘you’, meaning those responsible for the airport, it was not sent to anyone at the airport or anyone responsible for airport security, or indeed any form of public security. The grievance addressed by the message is that the airport is closed when the writer wants it to be open. The language and punctuation are inconsistent with the writer intending it to be or to be taken as a serious warning.’

Lord Judge LCJ, Owen, Griffith Williams JJ
[2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin), [2012] WLR(D) 234, [2012] ACD 114, [2013] 1 All ER 149, [2013] 1 Cr App R 1, [2013] 1 WLR 1833, (2012) 176 JP 737, 176 JP 737
Bailii, WLRD, Judiciary
Communications Act 2003 32 127
England and Wales

Crime, Media

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.464815

Zafar and others v Regina: CACD 13 Feb 2008

The defendants appealed against their convictions for possessing articles for a terrorist purpose.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ
[2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 2 WLR 1013, [2008] QB 810, [2008] 2 Cr App R 8, [2008] 4 All ER 46
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2000 57
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v G; Regina v J HL 4-Mar-2009
G was to stand trial for possession of articles useful for terrorism. Whilst in prison, he collected and created diagrams and information and prepared plans to bomb a local army centre. When arrested he said he had done so to upset the prison . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.264514

Serrano, Regina v: CACD 1 Dec 2006

The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have intercourse.
Held: The defendant had failed to establish evidence to sufficient to support a possible defence of provocation. The appeal failed.

[2006] EWCA Crim 3182, [2007] Crim LR 569
Bailii
Homicide Act 1957 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Acott HL 12-Mar-1997
Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific . .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Cited – Regina v Duffy CCA 1949
The court approved Devlin J’s direction to the jury on the defence of provocation to a charge of murder which had described provocation: ‘Provocation is some act or series of acts done or words spoken by the dead man to the accused which would cause . .
Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Cited – Regina v Miao CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. His main defence had been that there had been no intention to kill, but the judge had refused to leave to the jury the possibility of provocation.
Held: There was evidence of potentially . .
Cited – Confessor Valdez Franco v The Queen PC 14-Aug-2001
(Antigua and Barbuda) The appellant had been convicted of murder, with his defence of self-defence rejected by the jury. His defence was self-defence. No defence of provocation was advanced at trial and the trial judge gave no direction to the jury . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.270260

Confessor Valdez Franco v The Queen: PC 14 Aug 2001

(Antigua and Barbuda) The appellant had been convicted of murder, with his defence of self-defence rejected by the jury. His defence was self-defence. No defence of provocation was advanced at trial and the trial judge gave no direction to the jury on provocation. It was accepted that there was some evidence of provocation, but this had not been left for the jury. On appeal, the court had said that this should have been left for the jury, but would also have been rejected. Statute in Antigua required evidence of provocation, once raised to be left to the jury. In the circumstances the appeal court had been wrong to pre-empt what the jury might have decided. A conviction of manslaughter was substituted, and the matter was remitted for sentence on that basis. The clear effect of s9C was to deny to trial judges the power previously exercisable to withdraw the issue of provocation from the jury where there is evidence potentially capable of satisfying the subjective condition, even if the judge considers that there is no evidence which could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as the particular defendant did. As to the application of the proviso allowing a conviction to stand despite a misdirection: ‘The Board would accept that there will be cases where the proviso may properly be applied even where the objective issue should have been but was not left to the jury.’
Lord Bingham: ‘In the opinion of the Board, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in R v Cox, above, does not give adequate weight to the intention of Parliament expressed in section 3 of the 1957 Act and its overseas equivalents. The starting point must always be that in a trial on indictment the jury is the body to which the all-important decisions on the guilt of the accused are entrusted. This does not mean that every deviation from procedural regularity and legal correctness vitiates a jury’s verdict of guilty. That would impose an unattainable standard of perfection and frustrate to an unacceptable extent the effective administration of criminal justice. But it does mean that an appellate court, which is not the trial tribunal, should be very cautious in drawing inferences or making findings about how the jury would have resolved issues which, for whatever reason, were never before it. This is particularly so in the context of section 3, since Parliament has gone out of its way, unusually, to stipulate that resolution of the objective issue, where it properly arises, should be exclusively reserved to the jury. To the extent that an appellate court takes it upon itself to decide that issue it is doing what Parliament has said the jury should do, and section 3 cannot be read as applying only to the trial court. ‘

Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Times 11-Oct-2001, [2001] UKPC 38, Appeal No 70 of 2000
PC, Bailii, PC, PC
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Duffy CCA 1949
The court approved Devlin J’s direction to the jury on the defence of provocation to a charge of murder which had described provocation: ‘Provocation is some act or series of acts done or words spoken by the dead man to the accused which would cause . .

Cited by:
Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Cited – Serrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.163306

Pelletier Regina v: CACD 10 May 2012

This appellant appeals against a conviction for breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order notwithstanding that he pleaded guilty at the time of his arraignment.

[2012] EWCA Crim 1060
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.465611

Maillet, Regina v: CACD 8 Nov 2005

Convicted following a retrial of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of goods, namely 2.5 kgs of cocaine – ‘This being a case where the credibility of the applicant was of major importance, it is arguable that the judge was wrong to decline to give a good character direction as to the credibility (and possibly also as to propensity) on the ground that the applicant had been cautioned for the possession of cannabis in Denzil Road NW2 for personal use.’

[2005] EWCA Crim 3159
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.236593

Regina v Conway: CACD 28 Jul 1988

The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving. He said the offence was committed out of necessity, since his passenger’s life was under threat.
Held: Necessity can only be a defence to a charge of reckless driving where the facts establish ‘duress of circumstances’ . . where the defendant was constrained by circumstances to drive as he did to avoid death or serious bodily harm to himself or some other person.

Woolf LJ, McCullough, Auld JJ
[1988] EWCA Crim 1, [1989] QB 290
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1972 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Willer (Mark Edward) CACD 1986
The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving (absolute discharge and ten penalty points). He drove his car slowly on the pavement in front of a shopping precinct. He said that this had seemed to him to be the only way in which . .
Cited – Regina v Denton CACD 1987
Necessity not a defence to reckless driving
The trial judge had refused to leave to the jury the defence of necessity, which the appellant sought to bring to a road traffic allegation.
Held: The appeal failed. Caulfield J referred to the authorities, and said: ‘In view of our ultimate . .
Cited – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Cited – Regina v Graham (Paul) CACD 18-Dec-1981
The defence of duress requires establishment of a reasonable belief. In judging the accused’s response the test is: ‘have the prosecution made the jury sure that a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the defendant, . .
Cited – Regina v Willer (Mark Edward) CACD 1986
The defendant appealed against his conviction for reckless driving (absolute discharge and ten penalty points). He drove his car slowly on the pavement in front of a shopping precinct. He said that this had seemed to him to be the only way in which . .
Cited – Regina v Howe etc HL 19-Feb-1986
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder, saying that their defences of duress had been wrongly disallowed.
Held: Duress is not a defence available on a charge of murder. When a defence of duress is raised, the test is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Leading Case

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.262891

May v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Apr 2005

Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. The burden of proving that a particular location is a ‘public place’ rests on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt;
b. There must be evidence that the public actually utilised premises before a court can conclude that they are a ‘public place’. It is not sufficient to say that the public could have access if they were so inclined: Spence, supra.
c. Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier: Vivier, supra, p24d, or where they are visited for business purposes: Harrison v Hill 1932 JC 13, 16;
d. However, even business premises will be ‘public’ if the location is a public service, a railway station, a hospital or other public utility: ex parte Taussik, supra, [20]. This will include a pub car park during licensed hours: R v Waters (1963) 47 Cr App R 149,154;
e. A distinction is to be made where premises are occupied by a large number of people – even if there has been a condition of entry for those people, the premises will be a ‘public place’: Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] RTR 9, [17] (explaining Vivier, supra). This is because a potentially large number of individuals need to be caught or protected by the umbrella of the legislation.
‘In the present case there are no restrictions whatever upon the access of members of the public generally to the inner park during its opening hours. There is no selective process. A member of the public need not demonstrate or even harbour any particular reason for going there, albeit that the car park is intended for the use of customers of the premises. The car park adjoins a public road. In my judgment those factors are in this case sufficient to justify the lower court’s conclusion that this was a public place. ‘

Laws LJ, David Steel J
[2005] EWHC 1280 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Spence CACD 24-May-1999
A private company car park, where there was no proof of use by the public, was not a public road, and a driver could not be convicted of dangerous driving whilst in it. There must be evidence that the public actually utilised premises before a court . .
Cited – Harrison v Hill 1932
Mr Harrison was convicted by the Sheriff-substitute of an offence under section 7(4) of the 1930 Act on the ground that, while disqualified from holding a driving licence, he had driven a vehicle on a specific road. The Sheriff-substitute stated a . .
Cited – Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 6-Jun-2001
The defendant was found by police sat in the driving seat of a car parked on an isthmus which would be submerged at high tide. The engine was running, and the car lights were on. He failed a breath test, but argued at trial that since the car had . .
Cited – Regina – – Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Taussik 7-Jun-2000
Even business premises will be ‘public’ if the location is a public service, a railway station, a hospital or other public utility. . .
Cited – Regina v Waters 1963
A public House car park may be a public place for the purposes of the road traffic legislation during opening hours when the public may be expected to have recourse to it. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutins v Vivier QBD 1991
There had been a traffic accident in a large privately owned caravan park.
Held: Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier. Referring to Harrison v Hill: ‘What Lord Sands, and indeed Lord Clyde, say . .

Cited by:
Cited – Richardson v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Feb-2019
Private Car park was not a public plae.
The defendant appealed from his conviction for being drunk in charge of a vehicle in a public place. The place was marked private but allowed for paring for designated businesses.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The phrase public phrase had to be . .
Cited – Bowen and Others v Isle of Wight Council ChD 3-Dec-2021
What makes a road a Road?
The Court was asked whether a Road was a ‘road’ for the purposes of the 1984 Act’
Held: It has often been said that the public access mentioned in the definition of ‘road’ must be both actual access and legal or lawful access. However, simple . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.228215

Harriot v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 4 May 2005

The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction under the 1988 Act of possessing a bladed article in a public place. He had been found in the forecourt of a hostel by the police seeking to re-enter after being excluded. He said that it was not a public place.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Sedley LJ said: ‘the open area between the bail hostel building and the road was, on the face of it, part of private premises. There was no evidence before the District Judge that public access to it was either invited or tolerated. The District Judge placed weight upon the undoubted fact that access from the street was unimpeded, whether physically or by displayed notices. But this is, in my judgment, not enough to turn a private place into a place to which the public has access. ‘

Sedley LJ, Mitting J
[2005] EWHC 965 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 138 139(7)
Citing:
Cited – Harrison v Hill 1932
Mr Harrison was convicted by the Sheriff-substitute of an offence under section 7(4) of the 1930 Act on the ground that, while disqualified from holding a driving licence, he had driven a vehicle on a specific road. The Sheriff-substitute stated a . .
Cited – Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1992
The defendant’s conviction for possessing a bladed article in a public place was quashed on the ground that the landing of a block of residential flats where the appellant had been drunk and disorderly, and to which access was restricted to . .
Cited – Deacon v AT (a minor) QBD 1976
A 15-year old (Deacon or Deakin) who drove a motor car on a Council housing estate was charged with offences of driving a vehicle on a road A road in a housing estate, used only by those who resided in the estate or the visitors, and not by the . .
Cited – Pugh v Knipe 1972
Where land is on the face of it private land, the prosecutor accusing the defendant of driving on a public road, must establish the fact of public access, as here in relation to the forecourt of a private members club. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.384444

Planton v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 6 Jun 2001

The defendant was found by police sat in the driving seat of a car parked on an isthmus which would be submerged at high tide. The engine was running, and the car lights were on. He failed a breath test, but argued at trial that since the car had not been moving, he could not be said to have been driving. It was held that the question of whether he was still driving was one of fact and degree. In this case he could properly be said to have been driving. The appeal was allowed on other grounds. A distinction is to be made where premises are occupied by a large number of people – even if there has been a condition of entry for those people, the premises will be a ‘public place’.

Pill LJ, Silber LJ
Gazette 05-Jul-2001, Times 17-Aug-2001, [2002] RTR 9, [2001] EWHC 450 (Admin)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Director of Public Prosecutins v Vivier QBD 1991
There had been a traffic accident in a large privately owned caravan park.
Held: Premises will be private where they are entered for reasons beneficial to the occupier. Referring to Harrison v Hill: ‘What Lord Sands, and indeed Lord Clyde, say . .

Cited by:
Cited – May v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Apr-2005
Whether the car park where the driving took place was a ‘public place’ within the meaning of section 3.
Held: The appeal failed.
Laws LJ set out the following propositions as accurately summarising the relevant legal principles:
a. . .
Cited – Hughes, Regina v SC 31-Jul-2013
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death
The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.84759

Spence, Regina v: CACD 23 Mar 1999

There was an allegation of an offence of dangerous driving contrary to section 2 of the 1988 Act. The issue was whether the car park where the driving had taken place, not being a road, was an ‘other public place’. The case turned on the fact that there was ‘no evidence of the general public as such using the car park’ and that ‘[i]n the absence of evidence of any such user, there was no case to go to the jury’. The Court also emphasised that it would not suffice to prove that the general public could have access; it was necessary to show that they did in fact have access.

Lord Justice Henry,
Mr Justice Astil, His Honour Judge Grigson
[1999] RTR 353, [1999] EWCA Crim 808
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Harrison v Hill 1932
Mr Harrison was convicted by the Sheriff-substitute of an offence under section 7(4) of the 1930 Act on the ground that, while disqualified from holding a driving licence, he had driven a vehicle on a specific road. The Sheriff-substitute stated a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bowen and Others v Isle of Wight Council ChD 3-Dec-2021
What makes a road a Road?
The Court was asked whether a Road was a ‘road’ for the purposes of the 1984 Act’
Held: It has often been said that the public access mentioned in the definition of ‘road’ must be both actual access and legal or lawful access. However, simple . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.670324

R v Director of Public Prosecutions; B v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 5 Mar 2007

The defendants appealed by case stated their convictions by the youth court for robbery, saying that the victim had not said they had felt threatened or put in fear.
Held: Whether an act constituted robbery was decided according to the intention of the perpetrator and not the fortitude or otherwise of the victim.

Smith LJ, Gross J
Times 27-Mar-2007
Theft Act 1968 8
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.251564

Louanjli, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2021

Application for leave to appeal against his conviction of fraud by false representation, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (count 1) and being concerned in a money laundering arrangement, contrary to section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[2021] EWCA Crim 819
Bailii
England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.669226