Category: Crime

Director of Public Prosecutions v Whyte: HL 1972

Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The Obscene Publications Act 1959 adopted the expression ‘deprave and corrupt’ but gave a new turn to it. Previously, though appearing in Cockburn C.J.’s formula, the words had in fact been largely disregarded: the courts simply considered whether the publication was obscene and the tendency to deprave and corrupt was presumed: see Crowe v. Graham (1968) 41 A.L.J.R. 402, 409, per Windeyer J. citing Professor Glanville Williams [Criminal Law, The General Part, 2nd ed. (1961), p.70]. But the Act of 1959 changed all this. Instead of a presumed consequence of obscenity, a tendency to deprave and corrupt became the test of obscenity and became what had to be proved. One consequence appears to be that the section does not hit ‘articles’ which merely shock however many people.’
Lord Wilberforce
[1972] AC 849
Obscene Publications Act 1959
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Perrin CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had been convicted of publishing obscene articles for gain under the Act. He lived in London, and published a web site which was stored or hosted abroad, containing pornographic items. The investigating officer had called up the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.181213

Mason, Regina v: CACD 22 Jun 2021

Appeal against the minimum term of 28 years ordered on conviction of murder to serve before being eligible for consideration for release on life licence.
[2021] EWCA Crim 113
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.666329

Regina v Davies: CACD 1998

The court was asked whether a screwdriver fell within the prohibition of section 139(2). It was apparently an ordinary screwdriver with no sharp point, but it had what the trial judge had described as ‘blades positioned on each side of the driving head’.
Held: Buxton LJ: ‘We are, however, quite unable to agree with the conclusion to which he came. Firstly, we take up the argument advanced by Miss Deacon which also, so far as we can see, lies behind the judge’s ruling. It is too simple to say that the mischief of this section is to deter the carrying of items that could cause injury. Preventing or deterring further offences in which injuries are caused is, we entirely accept, no doubt the long-term and perfectly understandable objective of Parliament in passing sections such as section 139. Such an objective was also behind the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which, however, limited itself to objects made or intended for the purpose of causing injury. The contention here goes much wider: that any object that could be so used potentially falls within the section.
The objections to that are twofold. Firstly, it gives the section an extremely wide ambit. As soon as an object falls within this section and a citizen is found with it in his possession in public, he has to prove that he has a good excuse for having it. That is a very significant limitation on the citizen’s freedom. It should not be assumed that it has been achieved except by the use of clear words.
Second, the degree to which Parliament thought it proper to interfere with the citizen’s freedom in that way is demonstrated by the limitation in the section to articles, in section 139(2), which have a blade or are sharply pointed, except folding pocketknives. The common sense assumption that lies behind that section is that Parliament sought to prevent or deter the carrying of what might be broadly called sharp instruments in public, not any article that has a blade — even if a screwdriver can be so described — but an article with a blade that falls within the same broad category as a knife or a sharply pointed instrument. That follows not only as a matter of common sense, but by looking at the specific items that are mentioned in the section, that is to say sharply pointed instruments or folding pocketknives, and inferring from that what the nature of the bladed article is to which Parliament was referring.
It seems to us, in that comparison, that it would be quite unlikely, indeed in our view impossible, that Parliament intended an article such as a screwdriver, just because it has a blade, to fall into the same category as a sharply pointed item or a folding pocketknife.
Further, that that is the construction of the phrase ‘any article which has a blade’ is strongly reinforced by referring to section 139(3), which we have already read. The section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds three inches. That section, in its very language, seems to assume that references to blades entail references to a cutting edge. That is how the expression is used in section 139(3). It is also, as we have said, the way in which the other items in section 139(2) seem to be described.
In our judgement, the test cannot be, as the judge suggested, whether the article is capable of causing injury. If that were the test there would be no need and no justification to do what Parliament has specifically done, and limit the section to bladed items and sharp instruments. If the objective was to outlaw the carrying of all items capable of causing injury there would be no explanation at all for why there was a limitation to articles which happen to have something that could be described as a blade.’
Buxton LJ
[1998] Crim LR 564
Criminal Justice Act 1988 13991)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brooker v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Apr-2005
Appeal against conviction for having bladed article, being a blunt butter knife without a point.
Held: The appeal failed. The section made an unqualified reference to a ‘bladed article’. Davies did not establish that only sharp objects were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.231496

Regina v Bourgass: CACD 19 Jul 2005

Appeal from conviction of murder of a policeman – wrongful admission of some of the material relevant to conspiracy case which was deployed in the murder trial, after it was decided for practical case management reasons that there should be separate trials, and that the charge of murder, and the associated charges, should proceed first.
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman Lord Justice Judge Deputy Chief Justice of England and Wales The Honourable Mr Justice Curtis
[2005] EWCA Crim 1943
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.236270

Yeandel v Fisher: 1966

[1966] 1 QB 440
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.653245

Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine: 1629

Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in the chair by force. All pleaded to the jurisdiction. The plea nihil dicit meant that conviction would be inevitable, but if they defended themselves at all, their contention that Parliament was the only body with jurisdiction over these matters would be totally undermined. Eliot’s self-acknowledged dilemma was that if he did not submit he would incur the censure of the Court, but if he did, his act would be considered ‘a prejudice to posterity’ and ‘a danger to Parliament’. So he would be silent, just because his duty was to Parliament.
Held: Members had no privilege to speak seditiously or behave in a disorderly manner.
(1629) 3 St Tr 294
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Rex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine 1629
Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .
Cited – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .
Cited – Kimathi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 20-Dec-2017
Parliamentary privilege The claimants sought to have admitted as evidence extracts from Hansard in support of their claim for damages arising from historic claims.
Held: The court set out the authorities and made orders as to each element. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.409974

Rex v Eliot, Holles and Valentine: 1629

Parliamentary privilege did not protect the maker against seditious comments made in the Chamber of the House.
(1629) 3 St Tr 293
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Rex v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine 1629
Proceedings were taken in the King’s Bench against three members of the House of Commons, who were charged with seditious speeches, contempt of the King (Charles I) in resisting the adjournment of the House and with conspiracy to keep the Speaker in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.427744

Rex v Joseph Blackson, George Walker, And Rose Chambers: 16 Jun 1837

Parke B referred to the old principle that larceny and receiving should not be joined in the same indictment; but in cases where two charges were not repugnant they could be properly joined in the indictments and he gave the example of forgery and uttering.
Parke B
[1837] EngR 856, (1837) 8 Car and P 43, (1837) 173 ER 391
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.313973

Lamey v The Queen: PC 20 May 1996

(Jamaica) The appellant was convicted of capital murder.
Held: Murder was not a terrorist act where fear caused is merely a by-product of the acts and not directly intended. He had had no intention of putting any member of the public in fear. The Board accepted the proposition that there had to be a double intent on the part of the defendant for there to be a conviction for murder ‘ in the course or furtherance of an act of terrorism’. That Act required that separate intention, and it had not been shown. The case was remitted for re-sentence as non-capital murder.
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn
Times 22-May-1996, [1996] UKPC 14, [1996] 1 WLR 902
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Evon Smith v The Queen PC 14-Nov-2005
PC (Jamaica) The Board was asked whether the offence was a capital murder. The murder was committed in the course of a burglary. The defendant had stood on a ladder and reached in through a window and attacked . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.159167

Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption v Ch’Ng Poh (Hong Kong): PC 16 Jun 1997

Ch’ng Poh was a dishonest criminal appealing against conviction. His solicitor, ‘A’, was a partner in a firm of solicitors. To improve the prospects of a successful appeal by CP, bribes were offered through ‘A’ by CP to two individuals. A warrant based on an alleged breach of s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in Hong Kong authorised officers of the ICAC to search the premises of the firm where ‘A’ was a partner. This warrant was based on the assertion that ‘A’ had offered bribes to others on behalf of CP, not that he had received a hidden or any other benefit from CP which might have any effect on the services rendered to CP by the firm. He was, in the language of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, doing ‘his client’s dirty work’ by engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by offering bribes designed to improve his client’s prospects. The warrant was quashed by the High Court Judge and his decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong.
Held: The appeal failed. The bribes offered by ‘A’ were not offered in relation to the affairs of his firm, but exclusively to the affairs of his client. Therefore the warrant, in effect taking effect against the firm, was not supportable.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘. . for the section to apply, the person offering the bribe must have intended the act or forbearance of the agent to influence or affect the principal’s affairs. Accordingly section 9 would apply if Ch’ng Poh had bribed Mr. A. to secure him a benefit at X Co’s expense, for example, to arrange a reduction in X Co’s ordinary professional fees; or if X Co were induced to act in a way in which they would not otherwise have acted. Thus it is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 9 that the action or forbearance of the agent should be aimed at the principal. If it is sufficient for the purposes of the person offering the bribe that the agent should act on his own without involving his principal then, what ever other offence may have been committed, it was not a corrupt transaction with an agent . .’.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde
[1997] UKPC 28, [1997] 1 WLR 1175
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Majeed v Regina CACD 31-May-2012
The three defendants appealed convictions on a plea of guilty of corruption for ‘spot fixing’ as a player in cricket matches. The defendants had signed contracts not to do anything to bring the Pakistan Cricket Board into disrepute and to comply . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.159238

Majeed v Regina: CACD 31 May 2012

The three defendants appealed convictions on a plea of guilty of corruption for ‘spot fixing’ as a player in cricket matches. The defendants had signed contracts not to do anything to bring the Pakistan Cricket Board into disrepute and to comply with a Code of Conduct.
Held: ‘We cannot find anything in the judgment in Ch’ng Poh which lends support to Mr Milliken-Smith’s argument, and if it did, the submission would be wholly inconsistent with the clear statutory language.’ The way in which Butt, Amir and Asif, and Westfield performed was personal to them and clean contrary to and far removed from the wishes of the Boards which employed them. Nevertheless, looking at the realities of the situation there could on the evidence have been nothing closer to the heart of the affairs or business of a cricket Board than the performance the players selected by them to represent their and his country, or their and his county.
The offence contrary to s.42 is committed at the moment when ‘anything’ is done ‘for the purpose of enabling or assisting’ anyone else to cheat at gambling. It has nothing to do with the proper regulation of gambling: it simply creates an offence of cheating. In these cases the offence was complete before any bet was placed. The ‘fix’ was organised in England, the matches which were the target of the ‘fixing’ took place here, and the rewards for participating were also paid here. In short the criminal conduct prohibited by s.42 occurred within the jurisdiction.
Lord Judge CJ, Openshaw, Irwin JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 1186, [2012] Lloyd’s Rep FC 593, [2012] 2 Cr App R 18, [2012] Crim LR 965, [2012] 3 All ER 73, [2013] 1 WLR 1041, [2012] WLR(D) 172
Bailii, WLRD
Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 1, Gambling Act 2005 42
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption v Ch’Ng Poh (Hong Kong) PC 16-Jun-1997
Ch’ng Poh was a dishonest criminal appealing against conviction. His solicitor, ‘A’, was a partner in a firm of solicitors. To improve the prospects of a successful appeal by CP, bribes were offered through ‘A’ by CP to two individuals. A warrant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.459847

A and others v HM Treasury; G v HM Treasury: CA 30 Oct 2008

The Treasury appealed against an order quashing its own 2006 Orders, giving effect to the obligations on the United Kingdom as a member of the United Nations to ensure that the assets of an individual designated by the UN were to be subject to severe financial restrictions.
Held: The Orders in Council made under the 1946 Act giving effect to UN resolutions were effective subject to certain conditions. In particular there was a need to show reasonable cause to suspect involvement in terrorist activities, and proper opportunity to object to and answer any allegations made.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR said: ‘There is no power to appoint a special advocate in proceedings arising out of an order [made under the 2006 Order]. However, as I see it there is no reason in principle why a special advocate should not be appointed in a particular case. The authorities show that in an appropriate case the court would have the power to authorise or request the use of a special advocate, see in particular the decision of the House of Lords in Roberts . . where it was held that the court had power to do so even though it was not sanctioned by Parliament. Whether it should do so would depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It has very recently been held by the Divisional Court in Malik . . that the court has power to ask the Attorney-General to appoint a special advocate or that it should only do so in an exceptional case and as a last resort. . ‘ and ‘the court has power to order a special advocate. In most cases such an advocate should be able to ensure that the individual will receive a fair hearing. In other cases the direction would have to be discharged, see the reasoning of the House of Lords in the MB case. In either case, the interests of the individual will be protected.’
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sedley LJ, Wilson LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 14, [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2009] ACD 16, [2009] 3 WLR 25
Bailii, Times
Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006, United Nations Act 1946
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
Appeal from – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
The claimants objected to orders made freezing their assets under the 2006 Order, after being included in the Consolidated List of suspected members of terrorist organisations.
Held: The orders could not stand. Such orders were made by the . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others CA 4-May-2010
Each claimant had been captured and mistreated by the US government, and claimed the involvement in and responsibility for that mistreatment by the respondents. The court was asked whether a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.277356

Regina v Hailwood and Ackroyd Ltd: CCA 1928

During a parliamentary by-election in which there were three candidates, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, the accused had in- curred expenses on account of issuing publications which were antagonistic to the Conservative candidate and advised the constituents not to vote for him, but did not in express terms advise them to vote for either of the other candidates. It was held by the court that this constituted an offence under section 34(1). In delivering the judgment of the court, Avory J. said: ‘It is now suggested that, in a case like the present, where there are three candidates representing three different political parties, Conservative, Liberal and Labour, if a person who is not authorised by the election agent of a candidate incurs expenses of the kind in question he cannot be convicted under the section, which prohibits the incurring of the expenses for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of ‘any candidate’, unless it be shown definitely that he had the intention of promoting or procuring the election of one of these three candidates in particular. The answer to that suggestion is that the expression ‘any candidate’ in the section is not limited to one candidate only, since it is provided by the Interpretation Act. 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 63), section 1 subsection (1)(b), that words in the singular shall include the plural. It is further said that the appellant is not liable, inasmuch as while he endeavoured to prevent the election of one of the candidates, he did not directly promote or procure the election of any of them. If, however, a person has done what is forbidden by the section for a purpose which must have the effect of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate or candidates then there can be no question that he has committed an offence under the section.’
Avory J
[1928] 2 KB 277
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Luft HL 26-May-1976
The defendants were campaigning against the National Front in an election. They were separately said to have distributed leaflets infringing the 1949 Act, in that the expenses were not authorised, and the leaflets did not have the name of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.536061

Rex v White and Ward: 20 May 1757

The court considered the law of public nuisance to be the nuisance to ‘all the King’s liege subjects’ living in Twickenham and travelling and passing the King’s highway was impregnating the air with ‘noisome and offensive stinks and smells’. Each defendant, on undertaking to avoid repetition, was fined 6s 8d.
(1757) 1 Burr 333, [1757] EngR 85, (1757) 1 Burr 333, (1757) 97 ER 338 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.231618

Bradlaugh v The Queen: CA 1878

Conviction for publishing an obscene libel (abortion manual) overturned.
(1878) 3 QBD 607
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bradlaugh v The Queen 1877
Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs Annie Besant were prosecuted for publishing a treatise on contraceptive methods entitled the Fruits of Philosophy which had originally been published in the United States of America in 1832. They were prosecuted for . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Bradlaugh v The Queen 1877
Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs Annie Besant were prosecuted for publishing a treatise on contraceptive methods entitled the Fruits of Philosophy which had originally been published in the United States of America in 1832. They were prosecuted for . .
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 . .
Cited – In Re Besant ChD 18-May-1878
Mrs Besant had been prosecuted for publishing an obscene libel in the form of a book on abortion.
Held: The publication of the book was in itself sufficient grounds for removing Mrs Besant’s seven year old daughter from her mother’s custody. . .
Cited – Sutherland v Stopes HL 1925
Dr Marie Stopes failed in her attempt to reverse the verdict against her in libel proceedings she had brought in relation to a book which criticised what it called her ‘monstrous campaign of birth control’ and opined, looking back to the events of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.223707

Bradlaugh v The Queen: 1877

Charles Bradlaugh and Mrs Annie Besant were prosecuted for publishing a treatise on contraceptive methods entitled the Fruits of Philosophy which had originally been published in the United States of America in 1832. They were prosecuted for publishing an obscene libel.
Held: They were convicted.
(1877) 2 QBD 569
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Bradlaugh v The Queen CA 1878
Conviction for publishing an obscene libel (abortion manual) overturned. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Bradlaugh v The Queen CA 1878
Conviction for publishing an obscene libel (abortion manual) overturned. . .
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 . .
Cited – Sutherland v Stopes HL 1925
Dr Marie Stopes failed in her attempt to reverse the verdict against her in libel proceedings she had brought in relation to a book which criticised what it called her ‘monstrous campaign of birth control’ and opined, looking back to the events of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.223708

Wright, Regina v: CACD 5 May 2011

Young Cannabis plants found possession, not supply

The defendant appealed against his conviction for growing cannabis with intent to supply. He was found to have 35 plants and appropriate equipment for preparing the produce for division and supply. He said that since the plants had no flowering heads, he was not yet in possession of the drug.
Held: The possession of the juvenile plants was sufficient to found the charge of possession, but he was not yet in possession of those parts of the plant which might be sold, and the charge of possession with intent to supply failed.
Richards LJ, Rafferty, Paget QC JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 1180, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 15
Bailii
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(2)(b) 5(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Auton and Others v Regina CACD 3-Feb-2011
The court heard appeals against sentence for small scale production of cannabis.
Held: The court considered the use to which the product of cultivation was to be put. Hughes LJ observed: ‘The proper inference as to what the cultivation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.441299

Henderson v HM Advocate: HCJ 7 Sep 2010

A general provision creating a new order for lifelong restriction was read as not extending to certain convictions under the Firearms Act 1968, since the sentences applicable to such convictions fell outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC – 107
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – References (Bills) By The Attorney General and The Advocate General for Scotland – United Nations Convention On The Rights of The Child and European Charter of Local Self-Government SC 6-Oct-2021
Scots Bills were Outwith Parliament’s Competence
The AG questioned the constitutionaliity of Bills designed to give effect to two treaties to which the UK is a signatory, and passed by the Scottish Parliament as to the care of children.
Held: The laws had effect also outside Scotland . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.425922

Regina v Randall: HL 18 Dec 2003

Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By putting his own record in issue the co-defendant had lost the protection of the 1898 Act: ‘where evidence of propensity of a co-accused is relevant to a fact in issue between the Crown and the other accused it is not necessary for a trial judge to direct the jury to ignore that evidence in considering the case against the co-accused. Justice does not require that such a direction be given. Moreover, such a direction would needlessly perplex juries. ‘ Lord Steyn: ‘It is no answer to admitting [similar fact] evidence that it is evidence of the propensity of the accused to commit certain crimes. On the contrary, that is often the very reason for admitting such evidence. While these rules are not applicable in this case their rationale illustrates that propensity to commit certain crimes may sometimes be relevant to the fact in issue.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[2003] UKHL 69, Times 19-Dec-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R 26, [2004] 1 All ER 467, [2004] 1 WLR 56
House of Lords, Bailii
Criminal Evidence Act 1898 1(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
Cited – Lowery v The Queen PC 1974
(Victoria) A young girl was sadistically murdered. The two accused, were present and the crime was committed by one or the other, or both. Each brought evidence of the unlikelihood that he could have committed the murder. L emphasised his good . .
Cited – Regina v Bracewell CACD 1978
When there is more than one defendant in a case, the test of the relevance of an accused’s previous convictions before their admission into evidence, must be strictly applied ‘for if irrelevant and therefore inadmissible evidence is admitted, the . .
Cited – Regina v Miller 1952
The fact that a defendant has previous convictions is not normally relevant: ‘The fundamental principle, equally applicable to any question that is asked by the defence as to any question that is asked by the prosecution, is that it is not normally . .
Cited – Regina v Kilbourne HL 1973
The respondent was convicted of sexual offences against two groups of boys. The trial judge directed the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the uncorroborated evidence of the second group as supporting evidence given by the first . .
Cited – Lobban v The Queen PC 28-Apr-1995
(Jamaica) The judge had no discretion to exclude evidence on request of co-defendant in joint trial. The exculpatory part of co-accused statement not to be excluded since it was his right to have it put in. Those who are charged with an offence . .
Cited – Regina v Neale CACD 1977
Neale and Burr were jointly charged with arson and manslaughter. N wanted to adduce evidence, either by cross-examining prosecution witnesses or leading evidence himself, that B had admitted that he had started fires himself on four other occasions. . .
Cited – Regina v Lee CACD 1976
A defendant charged with burglary of a house should have been allowed to introduce into evidence the bad character of others, not called as witnesses, who had access to the house. The relevance of this evidence is that it goes to disposition. . .
Cited – Regina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
Cited – Regina v Vye etc CACD 7-Apr-1993
Detailed guidance was given on good character directions, as to how and when they should be given, but: ‘Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two respects in which good character may be relevant, ie credibility and propensity, this . .
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 – Regina v Murray CACD 10-Jun-1994
If one defendant claims a defence of duress from fear of the other’s driving, the other driver’s driving convictions are relevant and can be admitted in evidence. Evidence of the convictions of the other driver should have been admitted even though . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
Cited – Henry, Regina v CACD 29-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for soliciting to murder and conspiracy to murder. An expert’s opinion now described him as of low intelligence and vulnerable to the sort of pressure of which he complained.
Held: The expert evidence had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.188922

Regina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins: HL 1983

The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 impliedly included allegations of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and accordingly, on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act or on a charge of burglary contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the 1968 Act, it was open to the jury to return a verdict of not guilty as charged, but guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act, notwithstanding the absence of an assault: ‘there can be an infliction of grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 without an assault being committed’. The House also set out the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy.
Lord Roskill observed: ‘In the present case, the issue to my mind is not whether the allegations in the section 20 charge, expressly or impliedly, amount to an allegation of a section 47 charge, for plainly they do not. The issue is whether they ‘either expressly or impliedly’ include such an allegation. The answer to that question is what is expressly or impliedly included in a charge of inflicting bodily harm.’
Lord Roskill
[1984] AC 242, [1983] 3 WLR 686, [1983] 3 All ER 448
Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5(1) 5(2), Criminal Law Act 1967 6(3), Theft Act 1968 9(1)(b), Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 20 47
England and Wales
Cited by:
Followed – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .
Cited – Regina v Morrison CACD 20-May-2003
The defendant appealed a conviction for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. He had faced trial on a charge of attempted murder, and the judge had left open to the jury the alternative of the offence for which he had been convicted.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Cited – Regina v Dawson, Dawson CACD 14-Jul-1997
The defendants were convicted of a mortgage fraud. They appealed saying they had not been dishonest. They had signed forms, but they then had been completed by others, and that it had been those further replies which were dishonest. The original . .
Cited – Regina v Lahaye CACD 12-Oct-2005
The defendant had faced only an indictment alleging a malcious wounding charge under s18. The judge had left to the jury the alternative of a conviction for the lesser s20 offence.
Held: The lesser charge should normally be included on the . .
Cited – White v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under . .
Cited – Haystead v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 2-Jun-2000
The defendant had hit a mother in the face as she held the child. The force was sufficient to cause her to drop the child causing injury to the child. He appealed against a conviction for beating the child.
Held: The appeal failed. A battery . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.182275

Regina v Taylor: 1869

It was ‘contrary to common sense’ to describe the infliction of a sexually transmitted disease as an assault. A prisoner could upon an indictment under the section be convicted of a common assault, because each offence (‘wounding’ and ‘infliucting grievous bodily harm’) ‘necessarily includes an assault’, though the word does not already occur in the section.
Manisty J
(1869) Law Rep 1 CCR 194
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 18 20 47
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Cited – Regina v Clarence CCCR 20-Nov-1888
The defendant knew that he had gonorrhea. He had intercourse with his wife, and infected her. She would not have consented had she known. He appealed his convictions for assault and causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: ‘The question in this . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.196591

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 1997

A prosecution for sado-masochist acts was a necessary invasion of privacy to protect health. The Court found no violation where applicants were imprisoned as a result of sado-masochistic activities captured on video tape when police obtained possession of them. Although all male defendants in that case consented, they were charged with assault and wounding and sentenced to imprisonment. There was no unjustifiable interference.
A criminal conviction cannot constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8, unless there are special circumstances in a particular case calling for a different conclusion.
Times 20-Feb-1997, 21826/93, 21627/93, 21974/93, [1997] 24 EHRR 39, [1997] ECHR 4
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Brown (Anthony); Regina v Lucas; etc HL 11-Mar-1993
The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to . .
See Also – Regina v Brown etc CACD 15-Apr-1992
The defendants appealed against their convictions for offences under the 1861 Act of assaults inflicting injury. They said that as sado-masochists, they had mutually consented to the assaults and that no offences had been commited, but pleaded gulty . .

Cited by:
Cited – Pay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.165472

Regina v Kohn: CACD 1979

An overdraft facility was property which could be the subject of a charge of theft. In the context of the presentation of a cheque, improperly presented to a bank but which the bank pays, it was a theft of a chose in action by the person who presented such a cheque. The company’s accountant appealed from his conviction, having used the lawful possession of the company’s cheque book to write cheques for his own gain.
The Court confirmed that the form of charge was appropriate: ‘The sequence of events in this case can be brought down to a simple series of facts. The defendant starts with a cheque book in his possession. It is the cheque book of the company and he is plainly in lawful possession of that book with the cheques inside it. He apparently had the habit, as we have already indicated, at least occasionally of removing blank cheques from the book, tearing out the cheque, leaving the counterfoil in position, putting the cheque in his pocket and filling it in at a later stage. Still nothing wrong at all in that. He is still acting lawfully, although it may be somewhat unusual. He then makes up his mind to fill in the cheque with the amount, then the payees and the date and so on. The third party in whose favour the cheques were being made were ex hypothesi not entitled not entitled these sums. The appellant was therefore using the company’s cheques and the company’s bank account for his own purposes. Ms Goddard suggests that there was a gradual appropriation as the events moved on in this way.
The next stage is this. He says to himself, ‘I am now going to make the cheques payable to [another individual]. This action is unknown to [the principal of the company]. It is ex hypothesi once again contrary to the interests of the company. It is contrary to the will of the company and it is dishonest. This is dealing with a cheque not as agent of the company duly authorised, but is dealing with the cheque as if it was his own. That seems to us sufficient to amount to an appropriation under the Act.’
(1979) 69 Cr App Rep 395, [1979] Crim LR 675
Theft Act 1968
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.591725

Salvato, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 13 Oct 2021

Appeal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (‘the Secretary of State’) against the decision of Chamberlain J that the requirement imposed by the UC Regulations on a person claiming the childcare costs element (‘CCE’) of UC to have already paid for the relevant childcare (i) subjected the claimant and single mothers like her, to unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Article 14 read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, (‘A1P1’) and (ii) was irrational.
Lady Justice Andrews
[2021] EWCA Civ 1482
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.668575

Wielgus, Regina v: CACD 18 Mar 2014

This appeal relates to when someone should be charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm as opposed to assault by beating. And where a defendant is charged with assault by beating, is it permissible for the judge to invite the prosecution to amend the charge to one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm if the judge thinks that would be the more appropriate charge?
[2014] EWCA Crim 1047
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.533794

Regina v Cort: CACD 7 Jul 2003

The defendant appealed a conviction for kidnapping, saying the victims’ absence of consent was not fundamental. Driving his car, he had stopped at bus stops, inviting women to get in saying falsely that the bus had been cancelled. He had with him articles clearly intended to facilitate rape.
Held: Following Regina -v- D, the victims’ consent had clearly been obtained by fraud. It had been submitted that as in cases of assault and rape, in law only mistakes as to identity or the nature of the act, could vitiate a consent. That contention was rejected. The nature of the consent in rape and assault cases was different. The absence of consent may not need to be proved. ‘It is difficult to see how one could ever consent to that once fraud was indeed established. The ‘nature’ of the act here is therefore taking the complainant away by fraud. The complainant did not consent to that event. All that she consented to was a ride in the car, which in itself is irrelevant to the offence and a different thing from that with which Mr Cort is charged.’
Buxton LJ, Mitting, Paget QC JJ
Times 23-Jul-2003, Gazette 18-Sep-2003, [2003] 3 WLR 1300, [2004] QB 388
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v D HL 1984
D was convicted for kidnapping his 5-year old daughter, a ward of court, who was in the care and control of her mother. The CA held that there was no such offence as the kidnapping of a child under 14, that it could not be committed by a parent, and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Cited – Regina v Hendy-Freegard CACD 23-May-2007
The defendant against appealed his conviction for kidnapping. He had fraudulently taken control of his victims’ lives and fleeced them. He was said to have kidnapped them, originally by persuading them to get into his car and then driving off. He . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.185833

Sherwood v Cox: CA 1945

The respondent had been accused of selling milk not of the nature, substance and quality demanded, in that it was deficient in milk fat. The justices found facts proved as admitted: ‘When the summons was served on the respondent on August 14, 1944, there was also served on him a copy of the certificate of the public analyst (numbered 7582) of his analysis of the sample, the subject of the information, taken on July 17, in accordance with s80, subs3, of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. The sample had duly been divided into three parts as required by the statute, and certificate No 7582 related to that sample. On July 19, 1944, two days after the aforesaid sample was taken, the appellant, in order to meet a possible defence that the contravention was due to the act or default of another person under s83, subs1, took a further sample of the respondent’s milk, in accordance with s70, subs 2. A copy of the certificate of the public analyst relating thereto (numbered 386) was not served on the respondent with the summons, but was sent to him by registered post on August 21, 1944, by the appellant’s solicitor with a covering letter, saying that he proposed to adduce the certificate in evidence at the hearing. ‘At the hearing the prosecuting solicitor having stated that he proposed to adduce in evidence both certificates 7582 and 386, the solicitor for the respondent objected that the respondent had not been served with a copy of certificate 386 with the summons and that consequently the information was bad.’ The justices agreed with that submission and dismissed the information.
Held:
Atkinson J said, at 551-2: ‘Prima facie, the sample under s70, subs2, taken on July 19, 1944, is one which does not affect the respondent, but is more concerned with the original supplier. Both samples were sent to the public analyst, and on July 25 he issued two certificates. The certificate relating to the milk in respect of which Cox was prosecuted was certificate No 7582, and it certifies that there was only 2.85 percentage of fat. The certificate of the sample taken on July 19 was No 386. I do not know that anything really turns upon what precisely happened at the hearing, but the solicitor for the prosecution opened the case, and stated that he proposed to adduce in evidence both the certificates. At once the respondent objected that he had not received a copy of the second certificate numbered 386. with the summons, and the justices took the view that he was entitled to, and ought to have been served with a copy of that certificate along with the summons, and on that ground dismissed the information.
The contention of the respondent is that ‘any’ in s80, subs 3, means ‘every’ certificate of analysis. There the submission ends. Analysis of what, and within what limitation, I know not. The appellant says that the obvious meaning of that word is: ‘any certificate of analysis of the article sampled, of that which you are speaking about, the subject-matter of the information.’ And in my view the argument of the appellant is unanswerable. It seems to me that some limitation must be put upon the words ‘any certificate of analysis’. If it is not limited in that way, where is the line to be drawn? Is it any certificate of analysis of any milk at any time purchased, however irrelevant to the article sold and sampled? If it had been meant to go beyond the analysis relating to the article sampled, surely there would have been some words indicating the class or the limits within which the certificates to be served must come.’
Wrottesley J said: ‘I agree that what is meant by the words ‘any certificate of analysis’ is any certificate of analysis of the article sampled, and therefore to that extent of the article which is the subject of the information.’
Tucker J said: ‘I agree, although I do not think the point is perhaps quite so clear as do the other members of the court, for this reason, that, in my opinion, some words have to be read into s 80, subs 3, whatever interpretation is placed on the sub-section. I think it would suffice Mr. Quass’s argument if one read in the words ‘any certificate of analysis obtained on behalf of the prosecutor for the purposes of such proceedings.’ On the other hand, if Mr Hutton is right, I think the words which have to be read in are ‘in respect of the article which is the subject matter of the prosecution.’ And the question to my mind, is which of those alternative sentences should be read in. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that the words which should be read in are ‘in respect of the article which is the subject-matter of the prosecution.’ When one reads the whole of s 80, I think that is what is envisaged. Generally speaking, what is envisaged is the taking of one sample, no doubt for the purpose of the prosecution, although there may conceivably be cases in which two samples might be taken in respect of the article which is the subject-matter of the prosecution. If that were so, then, no doubt, service of both analyses would have to be made on the seller.’
. . And ‘It seems to me, therefore, to follow that if a prosecutor has an analysis made and obtains a certificate afterwards which he intends to use at the proceedings, he does so at his peril if he has not served a copy on the defendant in sufficient time to enable the defendant to comply with the requirements of subs3. If he does not, the court will no doubt grant an adjournment and the prosecution very likely will be penalised in costs.’
Atkinson, Wrottesley, Tucker JJ
[1945] 1 KB 549
Food and Drugs Act 1938
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sargent v GRE (UK) Limited CA 16-Apr-1997
The plaintiff had been injured, losing a finger, playing football whilst in the forces. He was unable to continue his profession within the army, and claimed under his insurance against loss of employment through permanent disablement. The insurers . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.186065

Shah v Regina: CACD 13 Oct 2010

The court gave reasons for granting the defendant’s appeal against conviction for evading the prohibition on importing controlled drugs of Class A. He had complained that the prosecution had not made available for cross-examination three witnesses recording of conversations with whom had been used in evidence against the defendant.
Hooper LJ, Butterfield J, Kenneth Parker J
[2010] EWCA Crim 2326
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.425201

Anderton v Ryan: HL 9 May 1985

The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source, but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods.
Held: The 1981 Act had changed the common law position, and the mere doing of preparatory acts which, if completed would constitute an offence, was not now sufficient. A conviction was now prevented where the full offence could not follow from the preparatory acts. None of the subsections would turn what was in fact an innocent act into an offence of attempting to commit the crime, merely by virtue of the defendant’s criminal intent.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Roskill
Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1985] 2 All ER 55, [1985] 2 WLR 968, [1985] AC 560, [1985] UKHL 5
Bailii
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Regina v Collins 1864
The court considered the case of an attempt where the defendant had put his hand in another’s pocket, but the pocket was empty. The fact that the victim’s pocket was empty prevented the actor from being guilty of an attempt to pick it.
Cockburn . .
Considered – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .

Cited by:
Overruled – Regina v Shivpuri HL 15-May-1986
The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an . .
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).
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.180553

The Gauntlet (No 2) (Dyke v Elliott): AdCt 2 Aug 1871

During the late war between the North German Confederation and France, a Prussian merchant vessel was captured in the English Channel, as prize of war, by a ship in the service of the government of France. A prize crew, under the command of an officer in the French naval service, was put on board the prize; afterwards the prize was driven, by stress of weather, to the Downs, and on the 24th of November, by order of an admiral in the French naval service, she anchored off Deal, within three marine miles of the shore. On the 26th of November, the collector of customs at Deal told the French consul there that it was time the prize left British waters. The French consul having found the Gauntlet, a British steam-tug, by accident at anchor in the Downs, the steam-tug, in pursuance of an agreement made between her master and the officer in command of the prize, and under the direction of such officer, towed the prize to Dunkirk Roads for the ordinary towage remuneration, which was afterwards paid by the French consul-general in London. At the time the agreement was made, the master, who was one of the owners of the steam-tug, had reasonable cause to believe that the prize was a prize of war, captured by the French. In a suit instituted on behalf of the Crown, for the condemnation of the steamtug :
Held: No offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Viet, c. 90), had been committed.
Semble, that the steam-tug was not employed in the military or naval service of France.
Quaere, Whether it is necessary to complete the title of the captor to prize of war, that the prize should be carried within the territory of the captor
[1871] UKLawRpAE 15, (1869-1872) LR 3 AE 381
Commonliee
Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dyke v Elliott (The ‘Gauntlet’) PC 9-Feb-1872
A French Ship of War captured in the English Channel a Prussian Ship as prize of war. A prize crew under a French naval Officer was put on board. The prize Ship being driven by stress of weather into the Downs, anchored within British waters, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.653248

L1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SIAC 4 Aug 2014

[2014] UKSIAC SC – 100 – 2010)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – L1 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2013
The appellant regularly travelled between the UK and Sudan. The officials asked the Secretary of State to decide in principle to deprive him of his nationality the next time he was in Sudan and exclude him from the UK, in order to mitigate the risk . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.539397

Dean v Regina: CACD 28 Jul 2021

The defendant appealed her conviction inter alia for kidnapping. The victim had been taken and brought to a car she drove, then taken out and severely assaulted. She said that the offence of kidnapping had been complete when he was brought to the car, and she was not aware of the duress.
Held: (a) kidnapping is a continuing offence; and (b) a person could be jointly liable for the offence if he joins the enterprise after the victim has been taken or carried away, but whilst the victim remains unlawfully confined. All that had to be proved was a deprivation of liberty and carrying away from the place where the victim wished to be. That definition, approach, and construction of the serious offence of kidnapping – which was a more aggravated offence than false imprisonment because it involved not simply the restraint on a person’s liberty but the carrying away by one person of another – made sense on the facts of the case.
The case against the appellant on Count 1 was that she was part of a joint enterprise kidnap from the outset, and we do not accept Ms Hobson’s submissions to the contrary.
Dame Victoria Sharp P, Sweeney, Foxton JJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 1157, [2021] WLR(D) 439
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Reid CACD 1972
The appellant had been convicted of the common law offence of kidnapping. He had gone to the address where his wife was living, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her unless she returned to live with him. Out of fear of the . .
Cited – Regina v D HL 1984
D was convicted for kidnapping his 5-year old daughter, a ward of court, who was in the care and control of her mother. The CA held that there was no such offence as the kidnapping of a child under 14, that it could not be committed by a parent, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.668379

Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Nov 2012

The appellants had been refused refugee status on the ground that they were suspected of having been guilty of terrorist acts. They said that the definition of terrorism applied within the UK was wider than that in the Convention which contained the exemption under which they were to be excluded.
Held: The appeals failed. The exemption must be construed tightly and applied only with caution, recognising the need for it to be applied only for serious criminal acts with international implications and adequate evidence of responsibility.
The article required acts inconsistent the United Nations purposes and principles, and it was not open to member states to adopt their own definition. At the moment there was no internationally recognised defition of terrorism, which meant in turn that even greater caution was required and that it should be triggered only in extreme circumstances. The test was whether the resulting acts had the requisite serious effect upon international peace. The definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act was significantly wider than in article 1F(c) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
The applicant DD had fought against the ISAF and UNAMA forces in Afghanistan. Whilst the standards applicable might differ as between such forces, the ISAF at least was clearly a force seeking to apply the UN principles and purposes, and DD’s Acts were contrary to it.
In Al-Sirri’s case the real issue was as to the presence of proof of his involvement. He had been tried and acquitted for the offence on which his exclusion was based. ‘Serious reasons for considering’ was not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt, and its meaning was autonomous. It required more than ‘reasonable grounds’. Strong or clear and credible evidence had to be present and the considered judgment of the decision-maker was required.
Lady Hale and Lord Dyson said: ‘there is as yet no internationally agreed definition of terrorism’ and ‘no comprehensive international Convention binding Member States to take action against it’.
Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson
[2012] UKSC 54, [2012] 3 WLR 1263, [2012] WLR(D) 333, UKSC 2009/0036, [2013] 1 AC 745, [2013] 1 All ER 1267
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1F(c), Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 54
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 3-Sep-2002
FCC (Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division) – Application by Pushpanathan for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division that he was not a Convention refugee. Pushpanathan . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for The Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) CA 10-Dec-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for asylum and protection on human rights grounds. He said that if returned to Afghanistan he would face a real risk of serious harm. . .
Appeal from – Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 18-Mar-2009
The applicant appealed against rejection of his asylum claim on the basis of his alleged involvement in acts of terrorism. He had been set to face trial but the charges were dropped for insufficient evidence.
Held: Sedley LJ considered the . .
Cited – JS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 17-Mar-2010
The asylum seeker was accused of complicity in war crimes in Sri Lanka. He had worked as an intelligence officer but his cover had been broken and he fled to the UK. It was said that he was excluded from protection as an asylum seeker.
Held: . .
Cited – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of . .
Cited – B v Germany ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ Directive 2004/83/EC – Minimum standards for the grant of refugee status or of subsidiary protection – Article 12 – Exclusion from refugee status – Article 12(2)(b) and (c) – Notion of ‘serious non-political . .
Cited – Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 6-Apr-1998
A fear of persecution which was justified only historically, was insufficient to justify an asylum claim. The applicant must show justification for contemporary fears. The applicant had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK, but wanted . .
Cited – W97/164 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 10-Jun-1998
Austlii (Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Australia) IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – application for a protection visa – whether applicant excluded from protection under the Refugees Convention by reason of . .
Cited – Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs 22-Dec-2000
Federal Court of Australia – MIGRATION – refugees – application for protection visa – whether serious reasons for considering commission of serious non-political crime outside country of refuge – application of Art 1F(b) of Convention Relating to . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gul, Regina v SC 23-Oct-2013
Mr Gul appealed against a dismissal of his appeal against his conviction for dissemination of terrorist publications contrary to section 2 of the 2006 Act. The Court was now asked as to the meaning of ‘terrorism’ in section 1 of the Terrorism Act . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.465934

Regina v Byrne: CCA 1960

The defendant was a sexual psychopath who had strangled and mutilated a young woman resident of the YWCA. The case on his behalf was that he was unable to resist his impulse to gross and sadistic sexual violence. The judge’s directions had amounted to excluding from abnormality of mind an inability to control his urges.
Held: This was incorrect. When considering a defence of diminished responsibility, lies told by the defendant are not relevant.
Lord Parker CJ explained the meaning of ‘abnormality of mind’ as ‘wide enough to cover the mind’s activities all its aspects, not only the perception of physical acts and matters and the ability to form a rational judgment as to whether an act is right or wrong, but also the ability to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with that rational judgment.’ Whether the defendant suffered from such an abnormality was a matter for the jury, but the jury was entitled to take into consideration all the evidence, ‘including acts or statements of the accused and his demeanour. They are not bound to accept the medical evidence if there is other material before them which, in their good judgment, conflicts with it and outweighs it.’ The key phrase ‘substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing’, ‘points to a consideration of the extent to which the accused’s mind is answerable for his physical acts which must include a consideration of the extent of his ability to exercise will power to control his physical acts’.
Whether the abnormality of mind was such as substantially impaired the mental responsibility of the accused for his acts in doing or being a party to the killing was ‘a question of degree and essentially one for the jury.’ and ‘Medical evidence is, of course, relevant, but the question involves a decision not merely as to whether there was some impairment of the mental responsibility of the accused for his acts but whether such impairment can properly be called ‘substantial’, a matter upon which juries may quite legitimately differ from doctors.
Furthermore, in a case where the abnormality of mind is one that affects the accused’s self – control the step between ‘he did not resist his impulse’ and ‘he could not resist his impulse’ is, as the evidence of this case shows, one which is incapable of scientific proof. A fortiori there is no scientific measurement of the degree of difficulty which an abnormal person finds in controlling his impulses. These problems which in the present state of medical knowledge are scientifically insoluble, the jury can only approach in a broad, common sense way’.
Lord Parker CJ
[1960] 44 Cr App R 246, [1960] 2 QB 396
Homicide Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Andrews CACD 15-Oct-2003
The defendant sought leave to appeal her conviction for murder saying that a finding of manslaughter was appropriate for her diminished responsibility.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to establish that the judge’s directions on the . .
Cited – Regina v Khan CACD 27-Jul-2009
On his trial for murder the defendant produced unchallenged expert evidence that at the time of the offence, his mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired by his mental illness. He said that in these circumstances the charge . .
Cited – Stewart, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the judge should have directed the jury as to the impact of alcohol dependency syndrome on his plea of diminished responsibility where there had been no discernible brain damage. . .
Cited – Golds, Regina v SC 30-Nov-2016
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been only convicted of manslaughter, applying the new test for diminished responsibility as provided under the 1957 Act as amended, and particularly whether the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.240381

Regina v Turnbull (Launcelot): CACD 1977

(1977) 65 Cr App R 242
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Williams (John) QBD 7-Oct-1994
A Police Constable’s fleeting view of a Defendant could be sufficient identification, subject to checks in court. However a Turnbull warning as to the need for corroboration may not always be necessary. The ‘striking similarity’ or ‘signature’ test . .
Cited – Regina v Dietschmann HL 27-Feb-2003
Voluntary drunkenness No Diminished Responsibility
The defendant had been convicted of murder. At the time of the assault, he was both intoxicated to the point of losing his inhibitions and was also suffering an abnormality of mind sufficient substantially to reduce his mental responsibility.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.179634

Regina v Collins: 1864

The court considered the case of an attempt where the defendant had put his hand in another’s pocket, but the pocket was empty. The fact that the victim’s pocket was empty prevented the actor from being guilty of an attempt to pick it.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘that an attempt to commit a felony can only be made out when, if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out successfully, and the felony completed of the attempt to commit which the party is charged.’
Bramwell B said: ‘an attempt to commit a felony can only be made out when, if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out successfully, and the felony completed of the attempt to commit which the party is charged. In this case, if there was nothing in the pocket of the prosecutrix, in our opinion the attempt to commit larceny cannot be established. It may be illustrated by the case of a person going into a room, the door of which he finds open, for the purpose of stealing whatever property he may find there, and finding nothing in the room, in that case no larceny could be committed, and therefore no attempt to commit larceny could be committed.’
Cockburn CJ and Bramwell B
(1864) 9 Cox CC 497
England and Wales
Cited by:
Considered – Anderton v Ryan HL 9-May-1985
The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source, but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting . .
Cited – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.194084

Regina v Shivpuri: HL 15 May 1986

The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an attempt where the a completion of the intended act would not have een a crime.
Held: His appeal failed. The actus reus of the offence of attempt required an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of offence and which the defendant did with the intention of committing an offence, notwithstanding that the commission of the actual offence was on the true facts impossible. He really intended to evade the prohibition on the importation of drugs; his mistake was merely as to the content of the packages. The court could depart from its earlier decision in Anderton despite its being so recent. The distinction previously drawn between ‘objectively innocent’ acts and others could not be sustained.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It follows from this, applying the reasoning in R v Courtie that each of the three distinct offences has different ingredients and, leaving aside considerations of impossibility arising under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, part of the actus reus of the offence which must be proved in each case is the importation, actual or attempted, of goods which were in fact of the appropriate category to sustain the offence charged. So far the argument seems to be irrefutable and is not challenged by the Crown.’ and ‘It is the next step in the argument which is the critical one. If each of the three offences involves proof of a different element as part of the actus reus, that is importation of the appropriate category of prohibited goods, it follows, so it is submitted, that ‘knowingly’ wherever it appears in section 170(1) and (2) of the Act of 1979 connotes a corresponding mens rea, that is, knowledge of the importation of goods in the appropriate category. I recognise the force of this submission. The point may be put in the form of a rhetorical question. Can it be supposed that Parliament intended that the mens rea appropriate to an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment should equally be sufficient to sustain a conviction for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment?’ He explained the history of the 1971 Act: ‘The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 repealed the earlier legislation and enacted a new and comprehensive code intended, one may reasonably suppose, to arm the courts with all the criminal sanctions they would need to counter the growing drugs problem.
Section 8 brought together a number of offences capable of being committed by the occupier or manager of premises and somewhat broadened their scope. ‘
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone L.C., Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Mackay of Clashfern
[1986] 2 WLR 988, [1986] UKHL 2, [1986] 1 All ER 334, [1987] AC 1
Bailii, lip
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b), Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
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 Hyam HL 1974
The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her children. The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm. . .
Cited – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .
Cited – Regina v Courtie HL 1984
The House considered how to frame an indictment in a case of buggery where the prescribed punishment differed depending on the particular factual ingredients.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘Where it is provided by a statute that an accused person’s . .
Cited – 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 . .
Overruled – Anderton v Ryan HL 9-May-1985
The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source, but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting . .
Applied – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Bett CACD 12-Oct-1998
A conviction under section 8(b) for permitting premises to be used for the supply of controlled drugs was correct without evidence of knowledge of the particular drug supplied even though particular drugs were named in the indictments. The section . .
Cited – Salmon and Moore v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Nov-1998
The court considered the burden of proof placed on the prosecution under s28 of the 1971 Act.
Held: ‘Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 28 are both designed to come into play at a stage when the Crown have proved all that they need to prove in . .
Cited – I v Director of Public Prosecutions etc HL 8-Mar-2001
A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held . .
Cited – Regina v Gulbir Rana Singh CACD 18-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed conviction on three counts of conspiracy to launder money. The prosecution said that he and his co-accused engaged in money laundering between June 1999 and March 2000. Each count alleged that he and his co-conspirators . .
Cited – Harmer v Regina CACD 21-Jan-2005
The appellant and a co-defendant were charged with conspiracy to launder property which they had reasonable grounds to suspect was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. The prosecution accepted that they could not establish . .
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).
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.178043

Regina v Reid: CACD 1972

The appellant had been convicted of the common law offence of kidnapping. He had gone to the address where his wife was living, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her unless she returned to live with him. Out of fear of the consequences she complied with his demand. The principal point on appeal was whether a husband could be found guilty of kidnapping his wife.
Held: A husband could be guilty of the common law offence of kidnapping his wife even though they were cohabiting.
Cairns LJ said: ‘We can find no reason in authority or in principle why the crime should not be complete when the person is seized and carried away, or why kidnapping should be regarded, as was urged by counsel, as a continuing offence involving the concealment of the person seized.’
Cairns LJ
[1973] QB 299, [1973] 56 Cr App R 703, [1972] 2 All ER 1350, [1972] 3 WLR 395, (1972) 136 JP 624, 116 Sol Jo 656
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dean v Regina CACD 28-Jul-2021
The defendant appealed her conviction inter alia for kidnapping. The victim had been taken and brought to a car she drove, then taken out and severely assaulted. She said that the offence of kidnapping had been complete when he was brought to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.581127

Gilham v Breidenbach: QBD 1982

Whether telling a police offer to ‘Fuck off’ was a withdrawal of the officer’s implied licence to be on private land.
Held: The meaning to be inferred from such words was to be worked out in the context of the particular case.
[1982] RTR 328
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wayne Fullard, Ryan Roalfe, Regina (on the Application Of) v Woking Magistrates’ Court Admn 16-Nov-2005
The defendants challenged convictions for assaulting police officers acting in the course of their duty. They said the officers were not so acting. The first defendant had been stopped in a vehicle which had left the scene of an accident. At the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.241691

Regina v Roach: CACD 4 Dec 2001

The defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful wounding, claiming a defence of automatism. Witnesses described his behaviour during the incident in ways which suggested this not to be the case. Medical evidence suggested he was capable of acting subject to automatism.
Held: The judge had not left to the jury the defence of non-insane automatism, and had been insufficiently clear as to the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Lord Justice Potter, Mrs Justice Rafferty, And, His Honour Judge Zucker Qc
[2001] EWCA CRIM 2698
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Burgess 1991
. .
Cited – Regina v Quick CACD 18-Apr-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling by the judge as to the meaning of the phrase ‘a defect of reason, from disease of the mind’ within the meaning of the M’Naughten Rules. More particularly . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.166968

O and H, Regina v: CACD 13 Oct 2010

The prosecutor appealed against a terminating ruling that the defendant had no case to answer on allegations of mortgage fraud. The prosecution had failed to bring evidence to establish how the forms complained of would have been used for an accounting purpose.
Held: Allowed.
Hooper LJ, Owen, Roderick Evans JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 2233
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 17(1)(b)
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.425200

Regina v Dawson and James: CACD 1977

At Liverpool Pier Head a sailor on shore leave waiting for the ferry was surrounded by two men, one standing on either side of him, who nudged him on the shoulder, causing him to lose his balance. While trying to keep his balance, a third man got his hand into the sailor’s pocket and took his wallet. It was contended before the trial court that that did not amount to the offence of robbery. The judge left the offence to the jury, who convicted him. In giving the judgment of the court,
Held: Lawson LJ said:
‘The choice of the word ‘force’ is not without interest because under the Larceny Act 1916 the word ‘violence’ had been used, but Parliament deliberately on the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee changed that word ‘force’. Whether there is any difference between ‘violence’ or ‘force’ is not relevant for the purposes of this case; but the word is ‘force’. It is a word in ordinary use. It is a word which juries understand. The learned judge left it to the jury to say whether jostling a man in the way which the victim described to such an extent that he had difficulty in keeping his balance could be said to be the use of force. The learned judge, because of the argument put forward by Mr Locke, went out of his way to explain to the jury that force in these sort of circumstances must be substantial to justify a verdict.
Whether it was right for him to put that adjective before the word ‘force’ when Parliament had not done so we will not discuss for the purposes of this case. It was a matter for the jury. They were there to use their common sense and knowledge of the world. We cannot say that their decision as to whether force was used was wrong. They were entitled to the view that force was used.’
Lawson LJ
[1977] 64 Cr App R 170, [1978] 68 Cr App R 170
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Clouden CACD 1987
The appellant approached a woman who was carrying a shopping basket in her left hand from behind and wrenched it down and out of her grasp with both hands and ran off with it. He was convicted of robbery.
Held: His appeal was dismissed.
‘The . .
Cited – RP and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2012
Appeal from conviction for robbery – theft of cigarette out of victim’s hand.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The court recognised the distinction between force applied to the object and the person: ‘ This case falls squarely on the side of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.618909

M (A Child), Regina (on the Application of) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 27 Jul 2004

The local authority applied for and obtained an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) in respect of a child in their care. The boy sought judicial review.
Held: There was a real potential conflict of interest on the part of the authority. On the one hand it had a duty to promote his welfare, and on the other it was the relevant authority to make an application under the 1998 Act. The position was not easily resolved. The authority could do its best to make sure that the child had independent protection of his interests by the obtaining of appropriate written reports.
[2004] EWHC 1830 (Admin), Times 30-Aug-2004, (2005) 169 JPN 818, [2005] ACD 43, (2005) 169 JP 557, [2004] Fam Law 790, [2005] BLGR 126, [2005] 1 FLR 81, [2004] 3 FCR 281
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Children Act 1989 22(4)
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.199643

Triggs v Lester: QBD 20 Jan 1866

A local act for a parish, in which was a large cattle market, enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any drover or other person to conduct or drive through any of the streets in the parish any oxen, sheep, or other cattle, during Sunday.
Held: that a person driving a van with horses, in which were calves being conveyed to the market, was not ‘driving’ or ‘conducting’ cattle within the meaning of the statute.
(1865-1866) LR 1 QB 259, [1866] UKLawRpKQB 4
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.653047

Affum v Prefet du Pas-de-Calais: ECJ 7 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Directive 2008/115/EC – Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals – Police custody – National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry – Situation of ‘transit’ – Multilateral readmission arrangement
C-47/15, [2016] EUECJ C-47/15
Bailii
Directive 2008/115/EC
European

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.565134