Category: Crime

Director of Public Prosecutions v M (A Minor): Admn 25 May 2004

There was an argument over payment for food with the Turkish chef of a takeaway kebab shop during the course of which the defendant used the words ‘bloody foreigners’ and pushed the shop window causing it to crack. The justices doubted whether the word ‘foreigners’ constituted a racial group but, more significantly for this case, found that the actions were the result of annoyance following the dispute over payment so that there was no case to answer in relation to racially aggravated criminal damage because hostility based on race had not been demonstrated. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The 1988 Act defined racial group as ‘a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic ornational origins.’ That definition was satisfied in a non-inclusive as well as an inclusive sense. The magistrates had erred in deciding there were two possible and separate motives for the offence. They should have been looked at cumulatively. ‘as a matter of construction in the context of the case the word ‘foreigners’ was capable of describing a ‘racial group’ defined by reference to nationality and/or national origins within the meaning of section 28(4) of the 1998 Act.’ and in the context of racial hostility directed by someone in this country to someone whose, or whose family’s, origin is not in this country, it is inescapable that the word ‘foreigner’ may, depending on the context, qualify as demonstration within section 28(1)(a) of a ‘group of persons defined by reference to race … or national origins’ within the definition in section 28(4), a minority, albeit now a substantial minority, in national terms in the population of this country.’ (Auld LJ)
Auld LJ, Richards J
[2004] EWHC 1453 (Admin), Times 23-Jul-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 2758
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 28(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 2004) CACD 22-Apr-2005
The defendant was accused of having racially abused the complainant by referring to him as an ‘immigrant doctor’ before the assault. The trial judge had held that the word ‘immigrant’ was so wide in its possible application as not to be capable of . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v CACD 10-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for racially aggravated abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or to provoke violence. He was driving his motorised scooter and came across three Spanish women. In the course of an . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v HL 28-Feb-2007
The House was asked whether the use of the phrases ‘bloody foreigners’ and ‘get back to your own country’ counted to make a disturbance created by the defendant a racially aggravated crime.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond) ‘The mischiefs . .
Cited – Regina v SH CACD 3-Aug-2010
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.198522

Regina v Kenning, Blackshaw, Fenwick: CACD 24 Jun 2008

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to aid and abet the production of drugs. They sold materials which could be used for the growing of cannabis, but exhibited a notice warning customers against this. They told undercover police however of the profits to be made.
Held: The appeal succeeded. An agreement which amounted to no more than to aid and abet an offence did not constitute a criminal conspiracy. An agreement to aid and abet an offence is not in law capable of constituting a criminal conspiracy under section 1(1) of the 1977 Act.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Dobbs J, Underhill J
[2008] EWCA Crim 1534, Times 10-Jul-2008, [2008] 3 WLR 1306, [2008] 2 Cr App R 32, [2009] QB 221, [2009] Crim LR 37
Bailii
Criminal Law Act 1977 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe CA 1991
Staughton LJ explained the presumption against interpretation of a statute to have retrospective effect: ‘the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in a manner . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Regina v Hollinshead CACD 1985
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to aid an abet a fraud under the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There was no offence of conspiracy in the form alleged namely to aid and abet, since aiding and abetting . .
Cited – Regina v Hollinshead; Dettlaff, Griffiths HL 2-Jan-1985
The defendants had manufactured boxes whose sole purpose would be to reverse electricity meters. The prosecutor appealed against their acquittal by the CACD on the basis that the offence of conspiracy to aid and abet did not exist, since aiding and . .
Leave to appeal – Kenning, Regina v CACD 23-Apr-2008
Appeal from convictions of possession and supply of cannabis and amphetamines. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.270944

Aidid v Regina: CACD 22 Apr 2021

The defendant appealed his conviction of murder, complaining of the jury direction on his being intoxicated and its effect on the specific intention required.
Fulford LJ, Dove, Butcher JJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 581, [2021] WLR(D) 307
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.662154

Regina v Z: CANI 30 Jun 2004

Kerr LCJ, Nicholson and Campbell LJJ
[2004] NICA 23
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2000 3
Northern Ireland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v Z (Attorney General for Northern Ireland’s Reference) HL 19-May-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions for being members of proscribed organisations. They were members of the ‘Real IRA’, but only the IRA was actually proscribed.
Held: The appeals failed. In construing an Act of Parliament it may be of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.198878

Regina v Matthews: CACD 25 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction for carrying a bladed article in public, on the basis that the Act transferred to him the onus of establishing the statutory defence.
Held: There were four steps to be applied in assessing the case. Was the burden an evidential or persuasive? If persuasive, did it impinge of the defendant’s rights? If it did, were the provisions compatible? If incompatible could they be read down to require only an evidential burden? Here there was a persuasive burden which did impinge on the defendant’s rights, but the good reason for that meant that the provision was not incompatible.
Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Field His Honour Judge Paget Qc
[2003] EWCA Crim 813, Times 28-Apr-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2004] QB 690, [2003] 3 WLR 693
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.180327

Regina v Nedrick: CACD 10 Jul 1986

The appellant poured paraffin through the front door of a house and set it alight. In the fire a child died.
Held: Lord Lane CJ considered whether a simple direction to the jury on intent to either kill or to do serious bodily harm was adequate and said: ‘Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.’
Lord Lane CJ
[1986] 1 WLR 1025, (1986) 8 Cr App R(S), [1986] EWCA Crim 2
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Matthews; Regina v Alleyne CACD 7-Feb-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, complaining that the judge had failed properly to direct the jury as to the required likelhood of death which might result from the act complained of, and turned a rule of evidence into a rule of . .
Confirmed – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Cited – Regina v Woollin CACD 12-Aug-1996
The defendant threw his child in anger onto a hard surface. He argued that he did not intend the consequences, the death of the child.
Held: A direction from the judge as to the making of an inference of intent from the consequences of an act, . .
Cited – Jones, Regina v CACD 30-Nov-2005
The court considered appeals against tarriffs set for defendants convicted of murder in the light of the schedules to the 2003 Act.
Held: ‘The guidance given by Schedule 21 is provided to assist the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.179313

Muhammed, Regina v: CACD 28 May 2021

Appeal against convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and causing death by driving whilst uninsured. There are two grounds of appeal. The first centres on the chain of causation between the appellant’s driving and death or serious injury. The second relates to the condition or use of seat belts in the appellant’s car.
Macur LJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 802
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 June 2021; Ref: scu.663408

The Queen v O’Connor: 20 Jun 1980

(High Court of Australia) Criminal Law – Intention – Voluntary intoxication – Unlawfully wounding
Mason J considered the defence of intoxication to a criminal charge and held that: ‘the view is taken that the act charged is voluntary notwithstanding that it might not be ordinarily considered so by reason of the condition of the perpetrator, because his condition proceeds from a voluntary choice made by him. These cases therefore constitute an exception to the general rule of criminal responsibility.’
Barwick CJ (1), Gibbs (2), Stephen (3), Mason (4), Murphy (5), Aickin (6) and Wilson(7) JJ
(1980) 146 CLR 64, [1980] HCA 17
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.272893

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski: QBD 28 Jun 2002

The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been accused under the Act of harassing the company and its employees.
Held: The act was intended to be used to protect individuals, and not companies. Two incidents were alleged, but no individual had been present at and could complain of harassment on both occasions. The Huntingdon case was not binding because the court had not heard argument from both sides. The employees were not such a closely knit group as to allow any treatment of them as a group. Following the second Huntingdon case, the Act was not to be used to seek to limit public demonstrations. As to the meaning of the word ‘person’ the legislative history of the provisions pointed against the word meaning a corporation; it was aimed at protecting specific and identifiable victims rather than groups or institutions.
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Times 08-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 4(1) 5(2), Interpretation Act 1987
England and Wales
Citing:
Not Binding – Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited v Curtin; Watson; British Union for Abolition of Vivisection; Animal Liberation Front; Animal Rights Coalition and London Animal Action CA 15-Oct-1997
The various defendants were accused of protesting repeatedly at the activities of the claimants, who sought orders under the Act to stop their protests as harassment.
Held: The Act was misused by trying to use it outside the areas intended; . .
Cited – Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited v Curtin; Watson; British Union for Abolition of Vivisection; Animal Liberation Front; Animal Rights Coalition and London Animal Action CA 15-Oct-1997
The various defendants were accused of protesting repeatedly at the activities of the claimants, who sought orders under the Act to stop their protests as harassment.
Held: The Act was misused by trying to use it outside the areas intended; . .

Cited by:
Cited – Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited, Brian Cass (for and on Behalf of the Employees of the First Claimant Pursuant To Cpr Part 19.6) v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty QBD 28-May-2004
The claimant companies conducted forms of medical research to which the respondents objected, and showed their objections by a wide variety of acts and threats which the claimants sought to have stopped. The defendants sought discharge of an interim . .
Cited – University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others QBD 10-Nov-2004
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village.
Held: The orders made were justified with the additional . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.174254

Director of Public Prosecutions v Fearon: Admn 10 Feb 2010

The prosecutor appealed against the defendant’s acquittal for causing a public nuisance in having approached a woman police officer posing as a prostitute. He said that as a single act it could not amount to a nuisance. The prosecutor argued that the individual act of this defendant must be seen in the context of the fact that there are lots of similar wholly independent acts committed by others, but that the consequence of all these acts taken together is to cause a nuisance to the public.
Held: There was no basis for saying that a common injury was sustained when focusing simply on this defendant approaching a single woman. Having rejected a series of individual acts as common injury, it would not even be a common or public nuisance to approach lots of women. The prosecution’s argument was quite hopeless: ‘Unless Parliament stipulates otherwise, a defendant does not become criminally liable because of the acts of others. It is not alleged that there is a conspiracy or a joint enterprise or anything of that nature. Single otherwise lawful acts do not become criminal because a defendant knows or ought to know that others are carrying out or are likely to be carrying out similar otherwise lawful activities. This is an attempt by the prosecution to have conduct which they consider to be reprehensible to be declared criminal. Furthermore they seek to do this by what is in my judgment a highly artificial and unprincipled extension of established doctrine. The courts should have no truck with it, and I do not.’
Elias J, Calvert-Smith J
[2010] EWHC 340 (Admin)
Bailii
Sexual Offences Act 1985 1 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd CA 1957
In a relator action, an injunction was sought to prevent the respondent from emitting quantities of dust from their quarry. The court had to decide what were the constituents of the offence of a public nuisance, and how this differed from a private . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.401861

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v Bedford and Mid Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court: Admn 19 Feb 2010

Both prosecutor and defendant appealed by case stated against decisions of the magistrates. The prosecutor said the magistrates had misdirected themselves on racial aggravation. The defendant appealed against an harassment conviction.
Ouseley J
[2010] EWHC 523 (Admin), (2004) 174 JP 278, [2010] 3 All ER 1057
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 28 31(1)(c), Public Order Act 1986 5
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.406539

Kakaei, Regina v: CACD 8 Apr 2021

Allowing of appeal against conviction of assisting unlawful immigration to a member state contrary to section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.
Lord Justice Edis
[2021] EWCA Crim 503
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 June 2021; Ref: scu.662491

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Charles: HL 1977

The House was asked as to the dishonest use of a cheque card. The appellant defendant was charged and convicted on two counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, contrary to section 16 of the 1968 Act. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) upheld those convictions.
Held: Where a drawer of a cheque which is accepted in return for goods, services or cash, uses a cheque card he represents to the payee that he has the actual authority of the bank to enter on its behalf into the contract expressed on the card that it would honour the cheque on presentation for payment.
Lord Diplock said: ‘When a cheque card is brought into the transaction, it still remains the fact that all the payee is concerned with is that the cheque should be honoured by the bank. I do not think that the fact that a cheque card is used necessarily displaces the representation to be implied from the act of drawing the cheque which has just been mentioned. It is, however, likely to displace that representation at any rate as the main inducement to the payee to take the cheque, since the use of the cheque card in connection with the transaction gives to the payee a direct contractual right against the bank itself to payment on presentment, provided that the use of the card by the drawer to bind the bank to pay the cheque was within the actual or ostensible authority conferred upon him by the bank.
By exhibiting to the payee a cheque card containing the undertaking by the bank to honour cheques drawn in compliance with the conditions endorsed on the back, and drawing the cheque accordingly, the drawer represents to the payee that he has actual authority from the bank to make a contract with the payee on the bank’s behalf that it will honour the cheque on presentment for payment.
It was submitted on behalf of the accused that there is no need to imply a representation that the drawer’s authority to bind the bank was actual and not merely ostensible, since ostensible authority alone would suffice to create a contract with the payee that was binding on the bank; and the drawer’s possession of the cheque card and the cheque book with the bank’s consent would be enough to constitute his ostensible authority. So, the submission goes, the only representation needed to give business efficacy to the transaction would be true. This argument stands the doctrine of ostensible authority on its head. What creates ostensible authority in a person who purports to enter into a contract as agent for a principal is a representation made to the other party that he has the actual authority of the principal for whom he claims to be acting to enter into the contract on that person’s behalf. If (1) the other party has believed the representation and on the faith of that belief has acted upon it and (2) the person represented to be his principal has so conducted himself towards that other party as to be estopped from denying the truth of the representation, then, and only then, is he bound by the contract purportedly made on his behalf. The whole foundation of liability under the doctrine of ostensible authority is a representation, believed by the person to whom it is made, that the person claiming to contract as agent for a principal has the actual authority of the principal to enter into the contract on his behalf.’
Lord Diplock
[1977] AC 177
Theft Act 1968 16
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Lambie HL 25-Jun-1981
The defendant had been requested by her credit card company to return her credit card and not to use it. She used it again before returning it. She was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception from the store, but her appeal was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.471154

John Wilkes, Esq v The King: HL 1768

Mr Wilkes had been accused of making a seditious libel against the King. He had peaded not guilty, but then absconded after his conviction, but before his sentence.
[1768] EngR 2, (1768) Wilm 322, (1768) 97 ER 123
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Wilkes v Wood CCP 6-Dec-1763
Entry by Force was Unconstitutional
The plaintiff challenged a warrant of commitment to the Tower of London addressed to John Wilkes by name. The plaintiff sought damages after his property was entered by force on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Held: The case was decided on a . .

Cited by:
See Also – Rex v John Wilkes, Esq 7-Feb-1770
The law must be applied even if the heavens fell
An information for a misdemeanor may be amended the day before trial by a single Judge at chambers on hearing both sides and without the consent of the defendant.
On setting aside John Wilkes’ outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.374591

Regina v Kelly; Regina v Lindsay: CACD 21 May 1998

Kelly was an artist allowed to draw anatomical specimens at the hospital, and Lindsay was a technician. They removed body parts from the hospital, and now appealed their convictions for theft.
Held: There is an exception to the traditional common law rule that ‘there is no property in a corpse’, namely, that once a human body or body part has undergone a process of skill by a person authorised to perform it, with the object of preserving for the purpose of medical or scientific examination or for the benefit of medical science, it becomes something quite different from an interred corpse. It thereby acquires a usefulness or value. It is capable of becoming property in the usual way, and can be stolen.’ The processes undertaken by a teaching hospital in which they preserved body parts created for them a sufficient proprietorial interest in the body parts to found a claim of theft against a defendant for removing them without their consent.
Rose LJ, Ognall J, Sullivan J
Times 21-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 1578, [1997] 1 WLR 596, [1998] 3 All ER 741, [1999] QB 621, (2000) 51 BMLR 142
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 4 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust CA 4-Feb-2009
The defendant hospital had custody of sperm samples given by the claimants in the course of fertility treatment. The samples were effectively destroyed when the fridge malfunctioned. Each claimant was undergoing chemotherapy which would prevent them . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.87047

Regina v Kingston: HL 22 Jul 1994

Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence

The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him.
Held: Involuntary intoxication is no defence if the defendant otherwise had the necessary criminal intent. To accept such a defence would be to allow the creation of a new defence as to which: ‘the recognition of a new general defence at common law has not happened in modern times. Nevertheless, the criminal law must not stand still, and if it is both practical and just to take this step, and if judicial decision rather than legislation is the proper medium, then the courts should not be deterred simply by the novelty of it.’ Nevertheless there were msany practical difficluties making it inappropriate for the House to do this.
Lord Mustill said: ‘Each offence consists of a prohibited act or omission coupled with whatever state of mind is called for by the statute or rule of the common law which creates the offence. In those offences which are not absolute the state of mind which the prosecution must prove to have underlain the act or omission – the ‘mental element’ – will in the majority of cases be such as to attract disapproval. The mental element will then be the mark of what may properly be called a ‘guilty mind’. ‘
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley
Times 22-Jul-1994, Independent 22-Jul-1994, [1994] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 AC 355, [1994] 3 All ER 353, [1994] 3 WLR 519
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Kingston CACD 10-May-1993
The defendant and a co-accused had sexually assaulted a boy. He appealed saying that the co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Involuntary intoxication can be a sufficient defence to a criminal . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Yip Chiu Cheung v Regina PC 16-Jun-1994
The appellant was charged with conspiracy to traffic in a dangerous drug, contrary to the common law and section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap 134 of Hong Kong. The prosecution said he had had meetings in Thailand with a man named Needham. . .
No longer good law – Rex v Pearson 1835
The prisoner was indicted for the murder of his wife. It was proved, that, in a fit of drunkenness, he had beaten her in a cruel manner with a rake-shank, and that she died of the wounds and bruises which she received. His only defence was that he . .
Cited – Ross v HM Advocate HCJ 12-Jul-1991
The defendant faced charges of attempted murder, malicious damage and aggravated assault. He had been drinking lager beer from a can. Unknown to him, someone else put temazepam and LSD in the drink. He began to scream and to lunge about him with a . .
Cited – Daniel M’Naghten’s Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard HL 1920
The accused raped a girl aged thirteen whilst he was drunk. He placed his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming, but without any intention of injuring her. He caused her death by suffocation, and was convicted of murder. It was argued on his . .
Cited – Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
Cited – Cardle v Mulrainey HCJ 1992
The defendant drank lager into which a third party had put amphetamine. He then tried to start vehicles belonging to others with the intention of taking them away. He also took some property from one of the vehicles. The sheriff acquitted him. The . .
Cited – The Queen v O’Connor 20-Jun-1980
(High Court of Australia) Criminal Law – Intention – Voluntary intoxication – Unlawfully wounding
Mason J considered the defence of intoxication to a criminal charge and held that: ‘the view is taken that the act charged is voluntary . .
Cited – HM Advocate v Cunningham 1963
. .
Cited – Regina v Sheehan and Moore CACD 1975
The court approved a direction of law to the jury who had been asked to conclude that the voluntary consumption of alcohol by the defendant should lead to the conclusion that he was too drunk to form the intention required for proof of the crime . .
Cited – The Queen v King 1962
[Supreme Court of Canada] Without appreciating the risk, the defendant drove a car whilst suffering from the after-effects of a medicinal drug which induced a state in which he might suddenly be unable to know what he was doing.
Held: His . .
Cited – Regina v Mandair HL 20-May-1994
The House of Lords may itself determine the grounds of an appeal, and deal with matters undetermined by Court of Appeal. A verdict of ‘causing GBH’ (not inflicting) was not an offence unknown to law. A verdict of ‘causing GBH contrary to s20’ was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.87081

Ali, Regina v: CACD 18 Feb 2021

Application for leave to appeal out of time against the applicant’s conviction on one count of rape and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
[2021] EWCA Crim 653
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 June 2021; Ref: scu.662388

Gosport Borough Council, Regina (on the Application Of) v Fareham Magistrates Court: Admn 21 Nov 2006

The council appealed refusal of the magistrate to grant it an anti-social behaviour order. The subject had been riding a jet ski at a grossly excessive speed. The witness statements had not included any statement that the witness was cause any alarm or distress by the behaviour.
Held: It was a necessary pre-requisite for an order that the behaviour had a potential victim. Behaviour which might only injure the subject of the application did not count.
Bean J
[2006] EWHC 3047 (Admin), Times 18-Dec-2006, (2007) 171 JPN 363, (2007) 171 JP 102, [2007] 1 WLR 634
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.247466

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Department of The Environment for Northern Ireland: CANI 6 Sep 2011

[2011] NICA 38
Bailii
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Postermobile plc v London Borough of Brent Admn 11-Nov-1997
At a meeting with Council Officers, the Appellants were told that they did not need consent for advertisements under the advertisements regulations. In reliance on that advice advertisements were erected and the Council then prosecuted the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.451587

B, Regina v: CACD 5 May 2011

Appeal on basis that a jury member had left the retirement room in distress, and the judge had not relayed the events to counsel to allow representations. Retrial ordered.
[2011] EWCA Crim 1183
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.441298

James Kirkwood’s Case: 1830

Forged notes of another bank may be given in evidence to shew guilty knowledge, though the subject of another indictment against the same party
[1830] EngR 105, (1830) 1 Lewin 103, (1830) 168 ER 976 (C)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.320985

Regina v H: 2005

[2005] 1 WLR 2005
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Grout CACD 1-Mar-2011
The defendant appealed against conviction of intentionally causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.
Held: The conviction was quashed. The evidence did not establish one of the essential elements for a conviction. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.430356

Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Nov 2009

The claimant sought compensation for his imprisonment after the overturning of his conviction, on the basis that evidence had emerged which undermined the conviction.
Held: Such a claim could not succeed where the reason for the non-use of the evidence was the incompetence or otherwise of the defence lawyers. Existing law had not decided just what constituted new evidence as regards who any evidence was unknown to. A failure by a defence team to recognise the significance of a particular item of evidence was not an example to fall with Lord Bingham’s categories in Mullen of something going seriously wrong, unless that failure was so bad as to be egregious.
Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Lloyd
[2009] EWCA Civ 1291, Times 07-Dec-2009, [2010] QB 460, [2010] 3 WLR 63, [2010] 1 Cr App R 25
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2009
. .
See Also – Regina v Adams CACD 12-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1993 for murder. . .
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .

Cited by:
Appeal From – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.381578

Regina v Matheson: CCA 1958

The defendant raised a defence of dimished responsibility under the 1957 Act to a charge of murder. Three doctors called for the defence at the trial had stated that the defendant was suffering from an abnormality of mind due to arrested or retarded development and that this abnormality of mind substantially impaired the appellant’s mental responsibility for killing a 15 year old boy. The jury convicted of murder. The defendant argued now that there had been no evidence to contradict that of the doctors.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility was substituted. Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘While it has often been emphasised and we would repeat that the decision in these cases as in those in which insanity is pleaded, is for the jury and not for doctors, the verdict must be founded on evidence. If there are facts which would entitle a jury to reject or differ from the opinions of the medical men, this court would not, and indeed could not, disturb their verdict, but if the doctors’ evidence is unchallenged and there is no other on this issue, a verdict contrary to their opinion would not be ‘a true verdict according to the evidence’.
Lord Goddard CJ
[1958] 1 WLR 474
Homicide Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Followed – Regina v Bailey CCA 1-Oct-1961
. .
Cited – Walton v The Queen PC 1978
The defendant shot someone in a car. His defence was diminished responsibility, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to death. The Barbadian statute used precisely the same wording as the English Act of 1957. There had been . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.368589

Barbara Rees Ltd v Cardiff County Council: Admn 3 Jul 2006

The defendant estate agency appealed its conviction for continuing to display ‘To Let’ boards for more than the permitted time. The prosecutor relied upon the signs indicating that the property had been let.
Held: The fact that the sign said that the property had been let was prima facie evidence that it had been let, and could found the conviction. If the property had not in fact been let, or was let only subject to contract, the defendant could have brought evidence to contradict the signs. It had not done so.
[2006] EWHC 1617 (Admin)
Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 224, Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.242956

Regina v Clarke: CACD 2 Apr 1996

Several people had lost large sums of mony by a fraud. The defendant had approached them offering his services as a private investigator to seek to recover their money. He pleaded guilty to one allegation of deception after an indication from the judge as to his intended direction on dishonesty which would disapply the defendant’s defence under Ghosh. He sought to assert that though he made misrepresentations to obtain the work, he honestly thought he could do it.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant’s case on dishonesty was unduly constrained by the judge’s ruling that in effect excluded evidence of his belief as to his ability to perform the work and the evidence the court was told could also be adduced as to his ability to do that. It also excluded the actual evidence that was eventually accepted as part of his mitigation, that he had in fact performed the work.
Rose LJ, Hidden, Buxton JJ
[1996] EWCA Crim 1804, [1996] Crim LR 824
Bailii
Theft Act 1968 16
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited – Regina v Feely CACD 1973
In relation to a charge of theft where the issue of dishonesty is raised, the issue must be left to the jury. Dishonesty is not a matter of law, but a jury question of fact and standards. Except to the limited extent that section 2 of the Theft Act . .
Cited – Regina v O’Connell CACD 1992
The appellant and his wife appliied for loans to buy residential properties to be let to obtain a rental income covering most of the mortgage payments. The properties were later sold to take advantages of increases in value. A sum of andpound;1.5 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.431833

M, Regina v: CACD 7 Feb 2007

[2007] EWCA Crim 298, [2008] Crim LR 71
Bailii
Terrorism Act 2000
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.314316

Regina v Baille: CACD 1995

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The deceased had been supplying his sons with drugs. On the day in question he learned that the supplier had threatened violence against one son for buying drugs elsewhere. He was drunk. He went to the victim’s house taking with him a sawn off shotgun and a cut throat razor. He found him and inflicted serious injuries with the razor. The victim ran off and he chased him and shot at him twice. The actual cause of death was material dislodged from a fence by the shot which in turn hit and killed the victim. He sought to argue provocation, in the form of a sudden and temporary loss of control triggered by hearing of the threats to his son. The judge decided that there was no evidence of such a loss of control to put to the jury.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge’s view was too restrictive. The idea under the 1957 Act was to move responsibility for deciding whether there was provocation to the jury, and away from the judge. Though the defendce might be optimistic, the court had been referred to not dissimilar cases where the jury had found provocation.
Henry LJ
[1995] 2 Cr App R 31
Homicide Act 1957 3
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.225460

Burge v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1962

References: [1962] 1 WLR 265
Statutes: Street Offences Act 1959 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd Admn 12-Nov-2003
    A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 2865 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193387

Weitz and Another v Monaghan: 2 Feb 1962

It was the prostitute who was guilty of soliciting by his or her physical presence. It was not enough for a written advertisement to be placed by him or her, or on their behalf, in a public place . A prostitute who displays an advertisement in a public street indicating that she is available for any one who desires her services does not thereby solicit.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘I am quite satisfied that soliciting . . involves the physical presence of the prostitute and conduct on her part amounting to an importuning of prospective customers.’
References: [1962] 1 WLR 262
Judges: Lord Parker CJ, with whom Ashworth and MacKenna JJ
Statutes: Street Offences Act 1959 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oddy, Regina (on the Application of) v Bugbugs Ltd Admn 12-Nov-2003
    A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 2865 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193386

Regina v Whitefield: 1984

The two accused agreed to break into a flat, but before entry was achieved, W said he withdrew. The other burgled the flat with another.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge was wrong to tell the jury that communication of his withdrawal to a co-accused was insufficient.
References: (1984) 79 Cr App R 36
This case cites:

  • Applied – Regina v Whitehouse 1941
    (British Columbia) The court asked when a party to a joint enterprise may claim to have abandoned or withdrawn from that enterprise ‘Can it be said on the facts of this case that a mere change of mental intention and a quitting of the scene of the . .
    ([1941] 1 WWR 112, [1941] 1 DLR 683)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192084

Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen: PC 1963

Their Lordships explained the meaning of the words of Viscount Salmon in Holmes: ‘It is plain that Viscount Simon must have meant the word ‘actual’ to have a limiting effect and that he had in mind some particular category of intention. He cannot have meant that any sort of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was generally incompatible with manslaughter because that would eliminate provocation as a line of defence . . ‘
References: [1963] AC 220
Judges: Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
This case cites:

  • Explained – Holmes v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1946
    Viscount Simon LC said: ‘as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control in a defendant. And with regard to the defence of provocation to a charge of murder: ‘Consequently, where the provocation inspires an actual . .
    ([1946] AC 588, (1946) 31 Cr App R 123)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
    In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3556)
  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192058

Rex v Appleby: 1940

Appleby and Osler, while committing an offence of warehouse-breaking, were surprised by police officers. They attempted to escape, but were pursued by the officers and a shot was fired by Osler which killed one of the officers. The expression ‘Let him have it’ was used by one of two professional criminals who were found guilty of murdering a police officer. ‘a much less degree of violence may be sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty of murder in the case of a police officer who is killed in the execution of his duty, in arresting a person or detaining a person in custody, so long as the arrest is lawful, than would suffice in the case of another person. If that proposition is good law today, as in the opinion of this Court it is, it seems to follow that two persons engaged in committing a felony with a common design to resist by violence arrest by an officer, have a common design to do that which, if it results in death, would amount to murder.’
References: (1940) 28 Cr App R 1
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192060

Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah: HCJ 31 Jan 2001

Links: ScotC
Judges: Lord Sutherland And Lord Coulsfield And Lord Maclean
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190928

Rex v Baskerville: 1916

References: [1916-17] All ER Rep 38, [1917] 12 CAR 81
Statutes: Perjury Act 1911 4
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Regina v Beck CACD 1982
    The defendant complained that the judge had failed to direct the jury about the dangers of relying upon the evidence of witnesses who, though not co-defendants, had their own conflicting interests. They also said that corroborative evidence should . .
    ([1982] CLY 563, [1982] 1 WLR 461, [1982] 1 All ER 807)
  • Cited – Regina v Cooper CACD 5-May-2010
    The defendant appealed his conviction for perjury. On being accused of using a mobile phone when driving, he claimed to have been using a hands free system. Evidence later showed that his kit had been fitted only after the date of the alleged . .
    (, [2010] EWCA Crim 979, [2010] WLR (D) 115, , [2010] 2 Cr App R 13, (2010) 174 JP 265, [2010] 1 WLR 2390, [2010] Crim LR 949)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191974

Attorney General for Ceylon v Kumarasinhege: PC 1953

The Board discussed the reduction to manslaughter of a charge of murder where provocation was alleged: ‘But as the Court of Criminal Appeal set out in their judgment what they conceived to be the English law relating to manslaughter their Lordships feel bound to observe that in one respect the court were in error. They said in reference to English law, ‘if it is established or clear from the evidence that through provocation of howsoever grievous a kind may have been offered, nevertheless, if it could be shown that the accused caused the death with an intention to kill, the offence is one of murder not manslaughter. This is one of the fundamental differences between our law and that of England.’ A little further down in the judgment they said ‘in the case of murder, there must be an intention to kill, in the case of manslaughter, no such intention can exist.’ With all respect to the court, that is not the law of England.’
References: [1953] AC 200
Judges: Lord Goddard
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
    In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3556)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192057

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright; Regina (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court: Admn 4 Feb 2009

The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and 2004 Act together meant that the evidential burden of raising the possibility of an exemption applying lay with the defendant, but once that was discharged, the legal burden of disproving the exemption lay with the prosecution. Orders were made accordingly.
References: [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), Times 17-Feb-2009, (2009) 173 JP 169, [2010] 1 QB 224, [2009] 3 All ER 726, [2010] 2 WLR 497
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sir Anthony May, President and Mr Justice Maddison
Statutes: Hunting Act 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 101
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987 ([1987] 1 AC 352, (1986) 84 Cr App R 163, [1986] 3 WLR 1115, [1987] AC 352, [1987] 1 All ER 1)
    The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
  • Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004 (, , [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, Times 14-Oct-04, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169)
    Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
    Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
  • Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001 (Times 06-Jul-01, , , Gazette 31-Aug-01, [2001] 3 WLR 206, [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] 2 Cr App R 28, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001] 3 All ER 577)
    The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.282623