Welland, Regina v: CACD 14 Sep 2018

The defendant appealed from his conviction for causing injury from dangerous driving. During his trial he suffered epileptic fits which were witnessed by the jury. The trial continued in part in his absence. He said that a new trial should have been ordered.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the appellant’s conviction is unsafe because the decision to proceed with the trial was made without proper regard to the principle that an accused is entitled to a fair trial, which includes a fair opportunity to give evidence in his own defence.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Lewis, Carr DBE JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2036

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622343

Mckeown v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jan 2011

The applicant alleged that his trial for terrorism related offences was unfair because of the way the courts in Northern Ireland had approached the question of non-disclosure of prosecution papers to the defence on grounds of public interest immunity.

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoMcKeown v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Apr-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.443850

Shehzad, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Crown Court and Another: Admn 21 May 2012

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision refusing him bail. He was accused of rape and of having bought a woman who had been trafficked.
Held: In refusing bail, the judge had not expresed himself to be satisfied to the standard required under the Bail Act. Though the judge may in fact have applied the test and misexpressed himself, review was granted.

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1453 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459829

BW, Regina (on The Application of) v Caernarfon Youth Court and Another: Admn 27 Mar 2013

The defendant youth having been convicted on his plea of several sexual offences, now sought judicial review of the decision to commit him to the Crown Court for sentence.

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1466 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 3C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510802

Regina v Van Bokkum: CACD 7 Mar 2000

Tuckey LJ rejected, as contrary to Galbraith, the proposition that in a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the judge would be required to withdraw the case if some inference other than guilt could reasonably be drawn from the facts proved: he should only withdraw it if he considered it unsafe for the jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty on the totality of the evidence.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 199900333/Z3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510098

Boodhoo (A Solicitor), Re (Wasted costs order): CACD 26 Jan 2007

The solicitor appealed a wasted costs order. He had been instructed by the defendant but the defendant had indicated his intention not to answer to his bail, and the solicitor had declined to continue his defence in the defendant’s absence, after an application for an adjournment had been refused.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Many issues might arise in a trial where the inability of a solicitor to take instructions might prove a professional embarassment: ‘while the solicitor’s presence might give an appearance of fairness, the fairness would be more apparent than real; it would be no more than a fig leaf to fairness. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, QC

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 14, Times 05-Feb-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248842

Regina v Crown Prosecution Service, Re Interlocutory Application: CACD 7 Sep 2005

The defendants in a forthcoming trial had applied for disclosure of surveillance tapes (some 15,000 hours) made during the investigations anticipating an application for a finding of abuse of process. Some had been served, but the prosecutor now appealed asking whether the protection of the defendants’ human rights required the disclosures.

Judges:

Rose VP LJ, Owen, Mitting JJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2342

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 35 36, European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v L, G etc CACD 17-Jun-2005
A cash sum of andpound;87,000 was transferred. The defendants appealed against a ruling under the 1996 Act, saying that at the time of its transfer, the property did not represent criminal property under the Act.
Held: The pre-conditions for . .

Cited by:

CitedH, Regina v Re Interlocutory Application CACD 7-Jul-2006
The defendant sought leave to appeal against a refusal of a crown court judge at a preparatory hearing to order disclosure.
Held: Because orders for disclosure would not form part of the material to be considered in a preparatory hearing as . .
CitedH, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.249351

Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office: Admn 2002

There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written application for warrants.
Held: The court considered the statutory requirements applicable to such warrants, and the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. The starting point was said to be sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act. Lord Woolf CJ assumed without finally deciding that ‘all the requirements of sections 15 and 16 have to be complied with if a warrant is to protect a search and the seizure of goods within premises to which it relates’. As to section 2 of the 1987 Act: ‘The structure of section 2 is clear. It is intended that the powers that are given to the Director under subsection (3) should be used to obtain documents, if it is appropriate to do so, and it is only in cases that do not lend themselves to being dealt with under subsection (3) that the powers contained in subsections (4) and (5), which were those used here by the SFO, in entering the premises in question, can be used.’ The hard drive of a computer would be ‘a document’ and, which it is true that section 2(18) defined ‘document’ in broad terms.
The court accepted a submission that Article 8 of the European Convention had to be taken into account when considering sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act, and section 2 of the 1987 Act: ‘In what I have said so far I have had fully in mind the fact that on any showing there is an intrusion into the protection provided by Article 8(1) where searches of the sort that took place in this case, and the removal of material as happened here, occur. However, Article 8(1) does not stand by itself; it stands subject to Article 8(2). It is my view that in drawing the legislation contained in PACE in the terms that it has, parliament is endeavouring to give statutory effect to the same principles which Article 8 is designed to protect .. The need to consider Article 8 only arises if sections 15 and 16 do not provide sufficient protection in themselves. In my judgment they do. Article 8 in a case of this sort does not add anything to what has been the position hitherto.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA 3023

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16, Criminal Justice Act 1987 2, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEnergy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
CitedFaisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.230388

Regina v Thompson and others: CACD 1995

The court considered the circumstances under which an accused could call in aid the convictions of a co-defendant:
Held: It was fundamental that it is not normally relevant to enquire into a defendant’s previous character or to ask questions which tend to show that he has previously committed some criminal offence. A defendant is always entitled to call evidence of his own good character or other evidence ‘in disproof of his own guilt’ of the offence charged against him. The test is whether the evidence is relevant or not to the question of guilt. The evidence was relevant ‘if it tended to show that the version of the facts put forward by one co-accused was more probable than that put forward by the other’ When there is more than one defendant, the test of relevance must be applied strictly to avoid prejudice to a co-defendant.

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

[1995] 2 Cr App Rep 589

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLowery 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.189886

Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN: Admn 31 Jul 2009

The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to undertake not the exercise required by section 3(10) of the 2005 Act – to determine whether the decision of the Secretary of State that the requirements of section 2(1)(a) and (b) were satisfied for the making of the order – but to ask whether or not, given the withdrawal of the material upon which the decision was essentially founded, it remains possible to uphold that decision on the basis of what is left.
Held: ‘if I can perform a task that is closer to the statutory exercise than that which [the prosector] suggests, I should.’ The court had had jurisdiction to make the original order, and the order was not therefore a nullity. The court would not quash it, but ‘an order, lawful at inception, but which can no longer be sustained, should be revoked.’ It would be for a judge presented with any new application to assess the evidence then presented.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1966 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 3(10)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AT and AW Admn 20-Mar-2009
Each claimant appealed against refusal of the Secretary to vary the non-derogating control orders to which they were subject.
Held: When the Secretary of State makes the decision to make a control order on a materially erroneous basis, the . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedBM v Secretary Of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Jul-2009
An anti-terrorist control order had been made, inter alia on the basis of evidence which had been withheld from the defendant. That now being seen to be unlawful, the Secretary of State had withdrawn that evidence. The court was asked whether the . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.368625

Regina v Liverpool Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1996

An order was made by a stipendiary magistrate hearing committal proceedings in a drugs case. By his order he had ruled that under-cover officers, although permitted to give evidence shielding their faces from the public in court, should not be permitted to withhold their true names and identity.
Held: Judicial review was granted.

Judges:

Beldam LJ and Smith J

Citations:

(1996) 161 JP 43

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.270017

Regina v Crown Court Woodgreen, ex parte Howe: QBD 1991

The applicant has no right to make more than one application under section 31(1).

Judges:

Watkins LJ and Anthony Evans J

Citations:

(1991) 93 Cr App R 213

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Leicester Crown Court (Her Honour Judge Mayor QC) ex parte Kaur CA 31-Mar-1997
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of leave to bring judicial review of a decision to estreat her recognisance given for the attendance of her son at court. The request had been out of time, and the judge had found her culpable as to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242685

Regina v Watford Magistrates Court ex parte Lenman: QBD 1993

Youths were accused of a violent disorder in the cenre of Watford. Witnesses feared for their safety and made statements to the police under pseudonyms, and at the committal hearing application was made that they give evidence under these pseudonyms, behind screens and with their voices disguised. The defendants opposed this application and the magistrates’ court ruled that the witnesses should retain their anonymity but that the advocates and legal representatives should be able to see the witnesses. The dfendants now challenged the ruling.
Held: There is jurisdiction at common law to admit incriminating evidence given against the defendant by anonymous witnesses, and it was ‘well established that there may be occasions upon which the interests of justice require that the identity of witnesses should be withheld’.

Judges:

Beldam LJ and Laws J

Citations:

[1993] CLR 388

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242458

Thongjai v the Queen; Lee Chun-Kong v the Queen: PC 5 Aug 1997

HL (Hong Kong) A challenge on the admissibility of an admission is not inconsistent with a denial that it had been made; one is question for judge, the other a question of fact for the jury. Lord Hutton aid that Lord Bridge’s speech in Ajodha was not to be read restrictively as limited to written statements or that ‘an issue of voluntariness for the judge to decide can only arise if the evidence of the prosecution suggests that the admission may be involuntary’, and
‘Whilst the statements considered by the Board in the Ajodha case were written statements, their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the principle stated by Lord Bridge applies also to oral admissions. Therefore where the prosecution alleges that the defendant made an oral admission, and the case is raised on behalf of the defendant that he did not make the oral admission and that he was ill-treated by the police before or at the time of the alleged admission, two issues are raised which are not mutually exclusive. The first issue, which is for the judge to decide, is whether, on the assumption that the alleged admission was made, it is inadmissible as being involuntary. The second issue, which is for the jury to decide if the judge rules that the alleged admission is admissible in evidence, is whether the admission was in fact made.’

Judges:

Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1997, [1997] UKPC 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedAjodha v The State PC 1982
(From Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Lord Bridge of Harwich asked: ‘. . when the prosecution proposes to tender in evidence a written statement of confession signed by the accused and the accused denies that he is the author of the . .

Cited by:

CitedCletus Timothy, Dexter Reid and Sheldon Lewis v The State PC 22-Apr-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89878

Stanford v United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Apr 1994

A defendant’s difficulty in hearing the case because of a screen erected to protect the identity of witnesses did not vitiate the trial or make it unfair. The right to a fair trial included the right to be present and in a position to follow the proceedings.

Judges:

R. Ryssdal, P

Citations:

Ind Summary 11-Apr-1994, Times 08-Mar-1994, 16757/90, [1994] Ser A No 282-A, [1994] ECHR 6

Links:

Worldlii, HUDOC, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

CitedRex v Smellie CCA 1919
The defendant was accused of mistreating his eleven year old daughter. He was ordered to sit upon the stairs leading to the dock, out of her sight, in order to avoid her being intimidated.
Held: A judge could, using the courts own powers to . .
CitedRex v Lee Kun CCA 1916
Accused must hear and understand the proceedings
A judge, from the moment he embarks upon a trial until he is functus officio that trial, is under a duty to ensure that both the process and substance of the trial is fair, and that both are duly compliant with appropriate principles. Lord Reading . .

Cited by:

CitedSC v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected ; Costs and expenses . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89490

Lawrence Pat Sankar v State of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 16 Dec 1994

(Trinidad and Tobago) An advocate’s failure to advise his client on the need for him to give evidence, and the consequences of his not doing so may be enough to justify an appeal against conviction.

Citations:

Independent 12-Jan-1995, Times 28-Dec-1994, [1994] UK PC 1, [1995] 1 WLR 194, No 22 of 1993, [1994] UKPC 49

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

distinguishedCodrington v the Queen (Belize) PC 27-Mar-1996
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had two grounds of appeal, that the judge had failed to get right the burden of proof, and that his counsel had not allowed him to give evidence when he had wanted to. The case was remitted. Although . .
CitedBoodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
CitedAnderson v HM Advocate HCJ 1996
The court considered the effect on a conviction of a failure by defence counsel. After considering the authorities: ‘It can only be said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice if it has deprived the accused of his right to a fair trial. That . .
CitedBally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89005

Hamilton and Another v Naviede and Director of SFO: HL 26 Jul 1994

A Company Court Judge may not fetter the later use of insolvency interviews by a criminal court. The obligation to give the information will not prejudice the fairness of a possible criminal trial, since the accused would still have the protection of section 78 of the Act of 1984.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Citations:

Independent 26-Jul-1994, Times 26-Jul-1994, [1995] 2 AC 75, [1994] 3 All ER 814, [1995] 1 Cr App R 95, [1994] 3 WLR 656

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 236, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.81190

Gohil, Regina v: CACD 15 Feb 2018

Re-opening of appeal – prosecution said to have failed to make full and proper disclosure – CACD Powers

Judges:

Gross LJ, William Davis, Garnham JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 140, [2018] 1 WLR 3697, [2018] 1 Cr App R 30, [2018] WLR(D) 105, [2018] Crim LR 669

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.623993

Bahbahani, Regina v: CACD 5 Feb 2018

Appeal from conviction – he had been impersonated by another at his trial. He lived abroad, and his property managed by his attorney and agent. The conviction related to a planning enforcement notice. The court now considered its jurisdiction to attack a summary trial in the Magistrates Court rather than a Crown Court.
Held:

Judges:

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 95, [2018] WLR(D) 67, [2018] 2 WLR 1658, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 149, [2018] 1 Cr App R 29, [2018] Crim LR 682

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 38 53(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.623988

Regina v Froud: CACD 1990

The defendant appealed saying that the judge had wrongly accepted an amendment of the jury’s verdict.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The verdict of not guilty had been corrected almost instantaneously and the judge had rightly exercised his discretion in accepting the amendment.

Citations:

[1990] Crim LR 197

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534462

Regina v Matthews: CACD 1990

The court gave guidance on the meaning of the word ‘interview’ when used in the Codes of Practice. Morland J said: ‘In our judgment it is not within the spirit of the Act or the code that ‘interview’ should be given a restricted meaning. Normally any discussion or talk between a suspect or prisoner and a police officer about an alleged crime will amount to an ‘interview’, whether instigated by the suspect, or prisoner or a police officer . .’

Judges:

Morland J

Citations:

[1990] 91 Cr App R 43

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHughes v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Oct-2009
The defendant appealed against her conviction for aggravated vehicle taking. She was found near the scene of a road traffic accident involving a stolen car, and her fingerprint on an isnide rear window. She submitted that the officers had asked as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.463270

Regina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Ellison: QBD 1990

Bingham LJ said: ‘If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is the duty of the court to inquire into the situation and ensure that its procedure is not being so abused. Usually no doubt such inquiry will be prompted by a complaint on the part of the defendant. But the duty of the court in my view exists even in the absence of a complaint.’
Leggatt J said: ‘Where a prosecutor applies to withdraw one charge and substitute another, which on the face of it is less serious, the magistrates’ court will ordinarily have no reason to object, and indeed no ground for doing so, provided that their powers of sentence remain sufficient. Here it is said that the stipendiary magistrate should have required the prosecutor to proceed on the charge of attempted theft instead of the charge of interfering with a motor vehicle, because the effect of the substitution was, as it is put, to deprive the defendant of his right to trial by jury. It is therefore said to have constituted an abuse of process, notwithstanding that the applicant was thereby rendered vulnerable to a less severe maximum punishment.
The key to the determination of this case appears to me to be that a defendant arraigned in a magistrates’ court has in truth no absolute right to trial by jury. Whether he has such a right depends on the charge which is preferred against him. Until the more serious charge . . was withdrawn the applicant enjoyed such a prospective right, but in relation to the less serious charge he did not. To speak of depriving the applicant of his right to trial by jury is . . only a pejorative way of making the point that upon reduction of the charge he ceased to be confronted by a charge sufficiently serious to warrant a right to trial by jury. In the absence of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor or of unfairness or prejudice to the accused, the prosecutor’s motive in making the substitution was irrelevant. The question is whether the substitution is in this sense a proper one.’
and ‘Whilst it is no doubt preferable that the charge ultimately made against a defendant should be correct in the first place that cannot always occur.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ, Leggatt J

Citations:

[1990] RTR 220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLouca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.380336

Regina v Mitchell: CACD 1977

The court considered the effect of changes in the law after a conviction on applications for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Lane LJ said: ‘This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It should be clearly understood, and this Court wants to make it even more abundantly clear, that the fact there has been an apparent change in the law or, to put it more precisely, that previous misconceptions about the meaning of a statute have been put right, does not afford a proper ground for allowing an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction.’

Judges:

Lane LJ

Citations:

(1977) 65 Cr App R 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Hawkins (Paul) CACD 2-Aug-1996
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, . .
CitedSteele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.244710

Munroe v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1988

The court considered whether the Crown Court had any jurisdiction to re-open issues of fact decided by the magistrates. A Newton hearing had not been held. The defendant challenged the right of the Crown Court itself to conduct such a hearing.
Held: Glidewell LJ said: ‘In our view, if the magistrates do hear evidence in order to decide the facts, and thereafter under section 38 commit the accused to the Crown Court for sentence, the magistrates should ensure that the Crown Court is informed of the facts they have so found. The Crown Court should then normally proceed to sentence upon the version of the facts found by the magistrates and should not allow the dispute as to the facts to be reopened. But if, on the other hand, the accused does not raise an issue as to the facts until he reaches the Crown Court, while, as we have said, the court has a discretion to remit the issue to the magistrates, we think that the discretion should normally be exercised by the Crown Court following the course advised by Watkins LJ, that is, by determining the issue itself, after hearing any necessary evidence before proceeding to sentence.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

[1988] 152 JP 567

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGillan v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2007
Before committing the defendant for sentence, the magistrates court had itself decided on disputed facts behind the plea. After being committed to the Crown Court, the defendant asked that court to conduct a further hearing to determine the facts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.253208

Practice Direction (Criminal proceedings: Classification and allocation of busienss): SC 26 May 2005

A detailed Practice Direction was handed down as to the classification of offences to be used in deciding how criminal cases were to be allocated on committal to the Crown Court.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AmendedPractice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.226039

Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1974

The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It would be anomalous for the court to say that the evidence raised no doubt whatever in their minds but might have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Lord Kilbrandon said that the test to be applied by each member of the appellate court is: ‘Have I a reasonable doubt, or perhaps even a lurking doubt, that this conviction may be unsafe or unsatisfactory?’ Viscount Dilhorne: ‘While . . the Court of Appeal and this House may find it a convenient approach to consider what a jury might have done if they had heard the fresh evidence, the ultimate responsibility rests with them and them alone for deciding the question [whether or not the verdict is unsafe].’

Judges:

Lord Kilbrandon, Viscount Dilhorne

Citations:

[1974] AC 878, [1973] 3 All ER 762, [1973] 3 WLR 719, (1974) 58 Cr App R 256

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
CitedRegina v Cooper (Sean) CACD 1969
The court considered its power to interfere with a jury’s verdict where a trial had been properly conducted: ‘every issue was before the jury and in which the jury was properly instructed, and, accordingly, a case in which this court will be very . .

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Appealed toRegina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
CitedPinfold, Mackenney v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2003
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant . .
CitedKin-Hung v The Queen PC 11-Nov-1996
(Hong Kong) Despite the judge’s sympathetic directions as to the inadeqacy of the prosecution case, the defendant was convicted of two rapes.
Held: The test whether each member of an appellate court considers the verdicts ‘unsafe or . .
CitedKelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .
CitedNoye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
CitedDizaei v Regina CACD 16-May-2011
The defendant had been convicted of misconduct in a public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He now appealed saying that he could demonstrate that the principal witness was dishonest. The prosecution replied that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.182511

Regina v Riebold: QBD 1967

When looking at a plea of autrefois acquit, the court had to ask whether there were any exceptional circumstances which would make it not oppressive to grant the prosecution leave to proceed.
Barry J said: ‘I feel that I am bound to apply this general rule to the facts of the present case and to ask myself whether there are here any exceptional circumstances which would make it not oppressive to grant the prosecution leave to proceed . .’

Judges:

Barry J

Citations:

[1967] 1 WLR 674

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedConnelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Beedie CACD 11-Mar-1997
Stay for Extended Autrefois Convict
The plea of autrefois convict applies only if the legal substance of the charges is same but the judge has a discretion. The plea is not limited to Connelly v DPP definitions, but is still narrow.
A 19-year-old girl died of carbon monoxide . .
CitedRegina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.180638

Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court: QBD 28 May 2002

The defendants were charged with criminal damage to genetically modified crops in a field. They sought trial by jury but would only have a right to such a trial if the value damaged exceeded pounds 5,000. The crops would not have been made available on the market for sale, and no value was immediately ascertainable.
Held: The value was not readily ascertainable, and they represented substantial investment. Accordingly the district judge was correct to treat the value as unascertained and therefore the offence was triable either way.

Judges:

Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jul-2002, Times 17-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.174318

Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others: CACD 12 Jun 2001

When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It is clear that the duty of the Court of Appeal when exercising this jurisdiction is not merely to review the decision of the trial judge who made the order under challenge, but rather to come to its own independent conclusions on the material placed before it’

Judges:

Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1075, [2001] 1 WLR 1983

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 159, European Convention on Human Rights 6 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88666

Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division): HL 7 Apr 1998

An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct could be used also in relation to the investigation of prior criminal offences.
Held: Police were unable to use section 93(H) to further the investigation of a possible offence. The section was intended only to further the recovery of awards after a conviction.
Lord Hutton referred to the dominant purpose test which had been adopted by the Divisional Court and to the test contended for by the Director of Public Prosecutions which would have required the judge in the Crown Court to be satisfied that the police officer applying for the order ‘had the genuine purpose of investigating the proceeds of criminal conduct and that the application for the order was not a mere device in order to investigate the commission of an offence and to obtain evidence to support a prosecution’. He went on to say: ‘I would make two observations . . The first is that if the true construction of section 93H be the one which I have suggested, then I consider that in the great majority of cases the Circuit Judge will not be faced with a situation where it appears that the police are actuated both by the purpose of investigating the proceeds of criminal conduct and by the purpose of investigating the commission of an offence, and that the judge will only have to consider whether he is satisfied (in addition to the matter certified in section 93H(4)) that the purpose of the application is to investigate the proceeds of criminal conduct. Secondly, in my opinion the nature of the dominant purpose test is well stated in Wade and Forsyth on Administrative Law . . : ‘Sometimes an Act may serve two or more purposes, some authorised and some not, and it may be a question whether the public authority may kill two birds with one stone. The general rule is that its action will be lawful provided that the permitted purpose is the true and dominant purpose behind the Act, even though some secondary or incidental advantage may be gained for some purpose which is outside the authority’s powers. There is a clear distinction between this situation and its opposite where the permitted purpose is a mere pretext and a dominant purpose is ultra vires.’
In those cases where consideration may have to be given to the distinction between the two purposes, or where it may appear that the two purposes may co-exist (an example being where the police wish to investigate a case of living on the earnings of a prostitute), I think that there will be little practical difference between applying the test adopted by Simon Brown LJ and applying the test propounded [counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions], but if a difference were to result, I consider it to be clear that the dominant purpose test is the appropriate one to apply.’

Judges:

Hutton L

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-1998, Gazette 07-May-1998, [1998] UKHL 16, [1999] Crim LR 220, [1998] 2 All ER 193, [1998] 2 WLR 715, [1998] AC 641

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 93(H)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Guildford Crown Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles QBD 29-Oct-1996
The claimant objected to the use by the respondent of orders under the 1988 Act to produce records for investigation and tracing proceeds.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘In my judgment, therefore, it would be wrong to construe the words in . .

Cited by:

CitedPearce and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 18-Jul-2013
The appellants challenged rejection of their complaints that actions of police officers searching their ‘squats’ when executing search warrants, were unlawful in that they had been intended not as descrbed for the search for stolen goods, but rather . .
CitedMiranda v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others Admn 19-Feb-2014
The claimant alleged that his detention by the police and the removal from him of encrypted computer storage devices purporting to use powers under the 2000 Act. He and his journalist partner had received and published materials said to be of . .
CitedMiranda, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others CA 19-Jan-2016
The claimant had been stopped at Heathrow by the defendant’s officers, and an encrypted data device had been taken from him using powers derived from the 2000 Act. The device was thought to contain material taken from the US NSA security service. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88677

Regina v Stone: CACD 14 Feb 2001

The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal had been allowed, and the court now considered whether there should be a re-trial.
Held: In order for a court to decline to order a new trial because of publicity which had occurred, there had to be shown on the balance of probabilities that owing to the extent and nature of the pre-trial publicity he will suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial could be held. Each case must be decided on its facts. Here, there had been very considerable publicity, but not all of it prejudicial to the defendant, and it was now some three years ago. A move of the trial away from the locality, and a proper examination of the jury should be sufficient to avoid such prejudice.
courtcommentary.com Court of Appeal can regard past press coverage as sufficient reason not to order a re-trial if, on balance of probabilities, a jury verdict of guilty at retrial would be rendered unsafe by the effect of publicity between original trial and the appeal

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Maurice Kay, Hallett JJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 22-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 297, [2001] Crim LR 465

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 7(1)

Citing:

AppliedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedRegina v Kray CACD 1969
Ronald Kray had been convicted of murder on 4th March 1969, and on 15th April 1969 he and a number of others were facing a second indictment charging them with murder and other offences. His counsel sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause . .
CitedRegina v Coughlan and Young CACD 1976
Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect . .
CitedRegina v McCann and Others CACD 1991
The defendants were alleged to be members of the IRA who had been found near to the home of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They were charged with conspiracy to murder. They did not give evidence. During closing speeches in a terrorist . .
CitedRegina v Bow Street Metroplitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1992
Defendant policemen challenged as an abuse of process, the issue of summonses relating to events some 18 years earlier.
Neill LJ said: ‘The freeing of the Guildford Four and the comments made by the Court of Appeal attracted immediate and very . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court ex parte The Telegraph Plc CACD 1993
The court considered the effect of a jury trial in balancing pre-trial prejudicial publicity. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘In determining whether publication of matter would cause a substantial risk of prejudice to a future trial, a court should credit the . .
CitedRegina v Reade and others CACD 15-Oct-1993
Police officers were prosecuted following the release of those convicted of the Birmingham bombing and Garland J granted a stay of the criminal proceedings against those officers, pointing out that publicity, although a powerful factor, did not . .
CitedRegina v Taylor and Another CACD 15-Jun-1993
In June 1991 Mrs Shaughnessy was stabbed to death at home. In July 1992 the Taylor sisters were convicted of that murder. An investigating police officer had suppressed an inconsistent statement made by a highly material witness, and there was also . .

Cited by:

CitedHM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88683

Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc: CACD 24 May 2001

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some charges, but wanted guidance on the rest. They were called into court and gave verdicts which were inconsistent with the first note. On further retirement they sent a second note wich indicated that the verdicts taken were wrong.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Thoughit would have been better if the judge had disclosed the full text of the jury’s first note immediately, it had not in fact affected the value of the verdict.
A trial judge has a discretion to accept an amendment to a jury verdict, but only in circumstances which disallowed the possibility of there having been a change of mind. The jury had delayed 27 minutes before delivering a note to the judge indicating a desire to alter the verdict. That delay was too long, and the verdict stood.

Judges:

Rose LJ VP CACD, Hunt, Mackay JJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Andrews 1986
Two defendants were tried for causing injuries to one child. The jury convicted the female defendant, of positive acts of cruelty against the child and returned a verdict of not guilty of those acts in respect of the male defendant. After the police . .
CitedLalchan Nanan v The State PC 1986
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might . .
CitedRex v Green 1950
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Any communication between a jury and the presiding judge must be read out in court, so that both parties, the prosecution and the defence, may know what the jury are asking and what is the answer ‘ . .
CitedRegina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .
CitedRamstead v The Queen PC 2-Dec-1998
New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material . .
CitedRegina v Maloney CACD 25-Mar-1996
The jury retired on a Friday. They did not agree and a majority direction was given. Later the clerk asked the foreman whether at least 10 of the jury were agreed upon a verdict. He answered, ‘Yes’. Asked what the verdict was, the foreman answered, . .
CitedRegina v Townsend 1982
Where a judge in a criminal trial received a note from the jury as to voting intentions, it would have both been possible and appropriate for the judge to tell counsel that he had a note showing unanimity on some counts and a division of opinion on . .
CitedEllis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
CitedRegina v Froud CACD 1990
The defendant appealed saying that the judge had wrongly accepted an amendment of the jury’s verdict.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The verdict of not guilty had been corrected almost instantaneously and the judge had rightly exercised his . .
CitedRegina v Orgles and Another CACD 9-Jun-1993
Jurors were not to be questioned individually as to on their capacity to continue. Any questions must be put through the foreman, while the whole jury was in open court. It is an irregularity to question individual jurors in the absence of the . .
CitedRegina v Follon CACD 1994
The conviction was quashed where the jury, having been unable to agree and been discharged, there was a disturbance in the public gallery. The judge asked the jury to retire again and they returned a verdict of guilty. . .
CitedRegina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .

Cited by:

CitedMaxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88687

Regina v Togher, Regina v Doran, Regina v Parsons: CACD 9 Nov 2000

In the light of the Human Rights Act, it would now be almost inevitable that a finding that the defendant had not had a fair trial, would lead to a finding that his conviction could not be regarded as safe. Where a defendant had pleaded guilty, but the circumstances suggested some abuse of process, it may be proper to allow an appeal to stand. The question of whether the rights of the defendant.
Lord Woolf CJ observed: ‘However, in the case of Francom [2001] 1 Cr.App.R. 17, this Court indicated, in a judgment which I gave on behalf of the Court, that we would expect . . that the approach of this Court applying the test of lack of safety would produce the same result as the approach of the ECtHR applying the test of lack of fairness. We would suggest that, even if there was previously a difference of approach, that since the 1998 Act came into force, the circumstances in which there will be room for a different result before this Court and before the ECtHR because of unfairness based on the respective tests we employ will be rare indeed. Applying the broader approach . . we consider that if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded as unsafe . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Steel, Butterfield JJ

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 111, [2001] 1 Cr App R 33, [2001] 3 All ER 463, [2001] Crim LR 124, [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 33

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker CACD 24-Oct-2000
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. . .

Cited by:

CitedBrown, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2015
The claimant, a patient hld at Rampton Hospital faced charges of attempted murder of two nurses. His lwayers had asked for the right to see their client in private, but eth Hospital objected, insisting on the presence of two nurses at all times. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88691

Regina v Charles, Regina v Tucker: CACD 20 Feb 2001

Charles had absconded on the day he was convicted of robbery shortly before the summing up. He was arrested over a year later and sentenced. He gave instructions to his solicitors to advance and renew his applications for leave to appeal conviction and the necessary extension of time. Tucker had absconded two days before he was convicted of sexual assaults and he remained unlawfully at large at the time of the hearing before the Court. His solicitors submitted grounds of appeal against conviction and maintained that they were still in touch with him and had his authority to proceed.
Held: Courts should allow some flexibility in dealing with appeals out of time by defendants convicted in their absence after absconding. The former more rigorous approach of R v Jones should not be followed in the light of the re-inforced need for a fair trial.

Judges:

Rose VP CACD LJ, Hooper, Goldring JJ

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1755, [2001] 2 Cr App R 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Cited by:

CitedSuchedina v Regina; similar CACD 27-Oct-2006
Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: . .
CitedOkedare, Regina v CACD 27-Feb-2014
The court heard applications for leave to appeal on behalf of applicants who had either absconded or disappeared.
Held: The court considered whether the lawyers filing the appeals had authority, whether express or implied. ‘we are satisfied . .
AppliedRiley and Others, Regina v CACD 1-Nov-2012
Two of the applicants had absconded. One of them Bradley absconded during his first trial, and was convicted in his absence at a re-trial. He sought to persuade the Court that grounds of appeal lodged on his behalf by counsel and solicitors who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88408

Regina v West (Rosemary): CACD 3 Apr 1996

Payments to witnesses in criminal trials by media need investigation and control. Nevertheless, the fact that a number of witnesses had sold their stories to the media before the trial, which was disclosed to the defence before or during the trial, was not considered to give rise to even an arguable ground of appeal. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘But, however lurid the reporting, there can scarcely ever have been a case more calculated to shock the public who were entitled to know the facts. The question raised on behalf of the defence is whether a fair trial could be held after such intensive publicity adverse to the accused. In our view, it could. To hold otherwise would mean that if allegations of murder are sufficiently horrendous so as inevitably to shock the nation, the accused cannot be tried. That would be absurd. Moreover, providing the judge effectively warns the jury to act only on the evidence given in court, there is no reason to suppose that they would do otherwise.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-1996, [1996] 2 Cr App R 374, 95/7813/S2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSteele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
CitedRegina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
CitedHM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88287

Regina v Warley Magistrates Court, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Same v Staines Magistrates Court, ex parte Same; Etc: QBD 13 May 1998

Once a guilty plea has been accepted in the Magistrates Court to an either way case, the Magistrates may still commit for sentence after hearing all factors including the defendant’s antecedents, but he should be allowed to make representations. Magistrates are to commit a defendant for sentence to the Crown Court only when satisfied that their own sentencing powers were insufficient.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Brian Smedley J

Citations:

Times 18-May-1998, Gazette 17-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 539, [1999] 1 WLR 216

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 17A

Cited by:

CitedGillan v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2007
Before committing the defendant for sentence, the magistrates court had itself decided on disputed facts behind the plea. After being committed to the Crown Court, the defendant asked that court to conduct a further hearing to determine the facts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88263

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Finninvest Spa and Others: QBD 23 Oct 1996

The referral of an approach from the Italian authorities for help to the Serious Fraud Office was not wrong. Where assistance is being given to an authority abroad in relation to an on-going investigation both the letter of request and the draft warrant are likely of necessity to be drawn in wide terms. The 1990 Act ‘created a wholly new scheme for mutual assistance with regard to criminal investigations, a scheme under which it would plainly be necessary to examine altogether more material than would ultimately constitute evidence at any trial.’ and ‘What is under investigation here is, after all, as the respondents point out, a wide-ranging, multi-faceted, international fraud involving far-reaching allegations against a large number of individuals in connection with an even larger number of companies. Considering, moreover, that it is at the investigative stage, one can hardly look to greater particularisation of the offences than is contained in the letter of request. So far from this being a fishing expedition, specific allegations of fact are made concerning the. setting up of an elaborate network of overseas companies and the various ways in which. the false accounting has been committed. The documentation which it is believed will establish or support these allegations is or rather was with C.M.M. Ltd and Mr Mills. In short the request for assistance here is not, as the applicants contend, vague and speculative; rather it is as precise and focussed as such a. request could sensibly be in these circumstances. ‘

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Gage J

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 142, [1997] 1 WLR 743, [1995] 2 BCLC 585, [1997] COD 94, [1997] Crim LR 213, [1997] 1 Cr App R 257, [1997] 1 All ER 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 1990, European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959

Cited by:

CitedEnergy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87815

Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court ex parte Satnam Sahota: QBD 10 Nov 1997

A delay in appeal against a decision taken in the absence of the accused is not the sole ground to be considered for the refusal of a rehearing.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86609

Regina v Campbell: CACD 14 Jul 1994

The judge is to give the jury a warning as to the strength and reliability of a handicapped person’s statement made in the absence of an appropriate adult, unless the case was strong without it.

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86284

Ramstead v The Queen: PC 2 Dec 1998

New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material irregularity

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1998, [1998] UKPC 47, [1999] 2 WLR 698, [1999] 2 AC 92

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

EndorsedRegina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85663

Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court: HL 24 May 2001

The defendant had been held in custody awaiting committal on a murder charge. An additional charge of manslaughter was added. The defendant argued that this did not constitute a new offence so as to allow an extension of custody time limits.
Held: The issue was the actual information laid before the magistrates and whether the second one constituted a different offence. If it did, the custody time limits restarted in the absence of some abuse. The regulations did not infringe the defendant’s human right to liberty.
Lord Hope said that before having recourse to section 3 one must first be satisfied that the ordinary construction of the provision gives rise to an incompatibility.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] UKHL 12, [2001] 2 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20, [2001] 2 WLR 865, (2001) 165 JPN 327, [2001] ACD 82, (2001) 165 JP 465, [2001] HRLR 29

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86017

Regina v Shannon (Also Known As Alford): CACD 11 Oct 2000

The defendant had been enticed to commit a crime involving supply of controlled drugs by a journalist acting as an agent provocateur.
Held: Entrapment is not a defence in UK law. It was open to the judge hearing the prosecution to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it was unfair, but there was no principle which required its exclusion. When considering whether or not to exclude the evidence on the basis that the offence had been committed at the behest of an agent provocateur, the mere fact of entrapment was not of itself sufficient to justify exclusion. Before excluding such evidence the judge must consider the effect of the entrapment on the unfairness of the proceedings as a whole.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Hidden And Her Honour Judge Ann Goddard QC

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2000, Gazette 19-Oct-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 1535, [2001] 1 Cr App R 168

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Citing:

CitedRegina v Smurthwaite; Regina v Gill CACD 5-Oct-1993
It is not a defence merely to show that there had been entrapment or the use of an agent provocateur, but the Judge has a discretion to exclude the evidence obtained if it would be unfair to use it. The need is to ensure a fair trial. . .

Cited by:

CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85550

Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove: QBD 17 Jun 1999

The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : ‘While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine’.

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 499, [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18

Cited by:

CitedInterfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
CitedBrooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection Admn 25-May-2006
The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85434

Preston Borough Council v McGrath: ChD 18 Feb 1999

The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose, implied no similar cross undertaking on behalf of the prosecution. The purpose of the undertaking is not served by such an implication.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPreston Borough Council v McGrath CA 12-May-2000
The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Local Government, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85029

Regina v Cairns: CACD 8 Mar 2000

It might still be proper for the Court of Appeal to admit evidence on an appeal which had not been made available on the trial, even though there appeared no sufficient reason why it had not been presented. Where the evidence was expert evidence which would have been admissible, was capable of belief, and might have based grounds for an appeal, and if the interests of justice and expediency so required, it could be admitted by the appellate court.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 21

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85163

Mitchell v The Queen: PC 24 Jan 1998

(Bahamas) The judge’s decision on a voire dire to determine the admissibility of a confession should not be revealed to the jury since it might cause unfair prejudice to the defendant by conveying the impression that the judge had reached a concluded view on the credibility of the relevant witnesses and of the defendant. Lord Steyn said: ‘The vice is that the knowledge by the jury that the judge has believed the police and disbelieved the defendant creates the potentiality of prejudice. A jury of laymen, or some of them, might be forgiven for saying: ‘Well the judge did not believe the defendant, why should we believe him?’ At the very least it creates the risk that the jury, or some of them, may be diverted from grappling properly and independently with a defendant’s allegations of oppression so far as it is relevant to their decision. And such an avoidable risk of prejudice cannot be tolerated in regard to a procedure designed to protect a defendant.’ and as to whether this defect could be cured by the judge’s directions: ‘This was a serious irregularity, notably because it was calculated to convey to the jury that the judge had arrived at a concluded view that he ought to accept the evidence of the police witnesses and Franklyn Williams and reject the evidence of the defendant. That was the basis on which the jury then heard the evidence about the confessions over a number of days. The judge did not subsequently tell the jury to ignore his decision as to voluntariness of the confessions. For these reasons their Lordships cannot accept the Crown’s preliminary submission that the irregularity was ex post facto cured.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-1998, [1998] UKPC 1, [1998] AC 695

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedMichael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
CitedTaylor v The Queen PC 13-Mar-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that admissions against each other by the co-defendants had been entered in evidence despite his allegations of police mistreatment. The statement was the only . .
CitedMitcham v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The applicant appealed against his sentence of death following his conviction for murder. He had been granted a stay of execution pending the appeal to the board and had since been given leave to appeal against . .
AppliedThompson v The Queen PC 16-Feb-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit . .
CitedKrishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
CitedWilliams v The Queen PC 25-Apr-2006
PC Jamaica – the appellant had been twelve when convicted on his own confession of murder. He said that the statement after oppression. The statement had been challenged but admitted without following the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83776

In Re Sternberg Reed Taylor and Gill (A Firm): CACD 26 Jul 1999

Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the case with the defendant. A re-trial was necessary, and could easily have been avoided.

Citations:

Times 26-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1870

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 3(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82203

Michael Gayle v the Queen (Jamaica): PC 2 Jul 1996

The judicial Committee of the Privy-Council is not to be used as second court of appeal on matters of fact.

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1996, Appeal No 40 of 1995, Appeal No 40 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 3, [1996] UKPC 18, [2012] ECHR 1636, [2012] ECHR 1635, [2012] ECHR 1637, [1990] ECHR 34, [2009] ECHR 619, [1980] ECHR 9, [1997] ECHR 205, [2014] ECHR 293, [1978] ECHR 8, [2010] ECHR 2263, [1994] ECHR 59, [2011] ECHR 2422, [1985] ECHR 14, [2016] ECHR 699, [2016] ECHR 704, [2016] ECHR 986, [2017] ECHR 32

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80774

Elliott (Angus Gordon) v HM Advocate: HCJ 24 Mar 1995

New evidence on an appeal was admissible only in accordance with the Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Ross

Citations:

Times 16-May-1995, 1995 JC 95, [1995] ScotHC HCJ – 2, 1995 SLT 612, 1995 SCCR 280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 228(2)

Cited by:

CitedFraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80299

Dunkley and Robinson v The Queen: PC 1 Nov 1994

(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find new counsel after his counsel quit. A case which had continued without this being allowed was unfair: ‘. . . where a defendant faces a capital charge and is left unrepresented through no fault of his own the interest of justice require that in all but the most exceptional cases there be a reasonable adjournment to enable him to try and secure alternative representation.’

Citations:

Independent 01-Nov-1994, Gazette 09-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 AC 419

Citing:

AppliedRobinson v The Queen PC 1985
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own . .

Cited by:

CitedGianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
CitedGianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
CitedGrant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
CitedDelroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80170

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Debenhams Plc: QBD 16 Aug 1994

A search by Trading Standards officers was subject to the PACE codes of Practice even though it may be described as a routine inspection. The officers had an obligation to specify the power under which they acted.

Citations:

Times 16-Aug-1994

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80156

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier: QBD 22 Feb 1996

Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We were referred to a number of authorities which considered somewhat similar provisions, but all I glean from those is that the answer to the question when proceedings are instituted or begun depends on the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the provision.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 826

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 34(2)

Cited by:

CitedRockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79996

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara: QBD 16 Jul 2001

The defendant had been interviewed at the police station, and told that, in the light of his admission, he would be cautioned. He returned with a solicitor, who said that before he could advise his client to accept the caution, he needed to hear the interview tape, and to see the evidence. The police refused access, and the defendant was charged. He then successfully applied for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The prosecutor appealed. The court said that without that information, the solicitor could not properly advise his client. The defendant was entitled to informed legal advice. This should not be taken as creating a general obligation on police to provide wide ranging disclosure before charge.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Silber J

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79980

Crummock (Scotland) Ltd v Hm Advocate: HCJ 9 May 2000

A company was charged with causing a contamination of the water over a large area, and the jury was drawn from that same area, and therefore might contain members who had drunk the water alleged to have been contaminated. The issues surrounding the impartiality of a jury were different from those about a judge. They were selected at random from a wide area. It was fallacious to view them as potential complainants.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79701

Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) A court’s insistence that a submission of no case to answer must be made in the presence of jury was unfair. When considering submissions of no case to answer, the judge should invite the jury to retire and, if he decided to reject the plea, he should say nothing to the jury about it. Where in any case the jury had remained in court during the submissions, the question for the appeal court would be whether in the circumstances of the case there was any significant risk of prejudice having resulted from the irregularity.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 864, [1995] UKPC 1, Appeal No 13 of 1994

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMichael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79678

Chan Wai-Keung v The Queen: PC 10 Jan 1994

(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial. What was required was that the potential fallibility of [the witness] should be put squarely before the jury, and this is what was done.’
Evidence from a convict looking for a reduced sentence was admissible with an appropriate warning.

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-1994, Independent 10-Jan-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 194, [1994] UKPC 47

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedGibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971

Cable et Al v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Feb 1999

The English Courts martial system did not give a fair trial because the role of the convening officer meant that the tribunal was not sufficiently independent or impartial since the officer might outrank the court and could dissolve the proceedings.
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Judges:

L Wildhaber P

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, (2000) 30 EHRR 1032, 24436/94;24582/94;24583/94;, [1999] ECHR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78815

British Waterways Board v Norman: QBD 11 Nov 1993

A solicitor cannot claim payment from the other party of costs he would not ask his own client to pay. An implied contingency agreement with his client could defeat a claim for payment of costs from the other party. There was never any intention on the part of the solicitors to create any liability for their own costs if the proceedings failed. It therefore followed that they sought to conduct the case on a contingency basis, such basis being contrary to public policy in any criminal trial such as this.

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Nov-1993, Times 11-Nov-1993, [1993] 22 HLR 232

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78651

Brooks v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: PC 2 Mar 1994

(Jamaica) The DPP successfully applied for a voluntary bill after the resident magistrate had discharged the defendant on the ground that having heard the evidence, there was no case to answer. The challenge to the DPP’s decision to seek a voluntary bill was advanced not on the ground of double jeopardy, but rather of abuse of process.
Held: The DPP or the judge should treat the decision of the resident magistrate with the greatest respect and regard their jurisdiction as one to be exercised with great circumspection. There have to be exceptional circumstances to warrant prosecuting a defendant after it has been found in committal proceedings that there is no case to answer. Nevertheless, a judge has the power to issue a voluntary bill of indictment ex parte.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 02-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 AC 568, [1994] UKPC 1

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
CitedGadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78679

Birse v Hm Advocate: HCJ 28 Jun 2000

Where a magistrate had heard a proper description of the reasons for granting a search warrant, it was not an abuse of the suspect’s human rights to execute it, even though he had not had chance to make any representations about the search. The right to an effective remedy was not to be enshrined in UK law, and this came close to such a claim.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Human Rights, Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78422

Bank of England v Gibson: QBD 9 May 1994

A court need not be satisfied as to the exact date of a theft, in order to make a finding that a theft had happened. The level of proof required in civil fraud cases will vary with the seriousness of allegation.

Citations:

Times 09-May-1994, Ind Summary 30-May-1994

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78155

Averill v United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Jun 2000

In general, access to a lawyer should be guaranteed to a suspect before he is interviewed. The right of silence is not absolute. The caution which warns of possible adverse inferences is itself an indirect form of compulsion. However whether a breach occurred is a matter of fact in the circumstances. Because of the possibility of such inferences being drawn, it was necessary to give a suspect access to a solicitor before interview.

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2000, 36408/97, [2000] ECHR 212

Links:

Bailii

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78029

Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001): CACD 12 Jul 2001

When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a suspect could suffer material prejudice from the date of the interview, that would often not be the case. The previous law was that a stay for abuse of process should be granted only in exceptional cases and where the defendant could show that because of the delay he would suffer serious prejudice which denied him the chance of a fair trial. Under Human Rights law, proceedings should still only be stayed where the conduct of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the proceedings of the courts.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Wright and Grigson JJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1869, [2001] EWCA Crim 1568

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Citing:

FollowedAttorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 3-Jun-1992
The jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings on the ground of delay is exceptional, even where the delay was unjustifiable, and a stay should rarely be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution, and should . .

Cited by:

CitedPlinio Galfetti v Regina CACD 31-Jul-2002
The defendant had been convicted of various offences of violence but then was then to be held in a secure mental hospital. A place was not available, and an order only became available some nine months later, at which time, he argued that the order . .
CitedRegina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Ashton, Lyons and Webber CACD 6-Dec-2002
The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard.
Held: The appellants’ rights had been infringed by the delay, and they . .
CitedAaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
CitedLloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Appeal fromAttorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
CitedRegina v S (Crime: delay in prosecution) CACD 6-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction saying that the prosecution should have been stayed permanently because of the delay in bringing the case. He had been sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for sexual assaults committed in the 1970s.
Held: A . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Bentham Admn 2003
At the trial of a substantive claim for declarations of property rights in the context of confiscation proceedings under the 1986 Act, two interested parties sought to dismissal or stay of the claims dismissed for delay. The proceedings went back to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77964

Attorney-General v Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd: QBD 31 Aug 1998

The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict liability rules did not help. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It seems to me necessarily to follow . . that one and the same publication may well constitute a contempt and yet, even though not substantially mitigated in its effect by a temporary stay and/or change of venue, not so prejudice the trial as to undermine the safety of any subsequent conviction. To my mind that can only be because section 2(2) postulates a lesser degree of prejudice than is required to make good an appeal against conviction . . In short section 2(2) is designed to avoid (and where necessary punish) publications even if they merely risk prejudicing proceedings, whereas a stay will generally only be granted where it is recognised that any subsequent conviction would otherwise be imperilled, and a conviction will only be set aside . . if it is actually unsafe.’
As to the case of Unger, Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I still think that to create a seriously arguable ground of appeal is a sufficient basis for finding strict liability contempt. Clearly it is a relevant consideration too that when a judge at first instance is deciding whether or not to grant a temporary stay. But more particularly the trial judge will ask himself: ‘is there a real danger that the jury cannot reach a just verdict, or the defendant have a fair trial?’ The judge will have to form a view as to just how seriously prejudicial the publication is, to what extent it can be mitigated by special directions, how desirable it is to avert a possible risk of a successful appeal on that ground, and how inconvenient and costly in the particular circumstances a stay would be (depending in large part no doubt on how far into the trial the problem arises).’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Thomas J

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 769, [1999] 1 WLR 361, [1999] EMLR 39, [1998] 4 All ER 49

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)

Citing:

CitedAttorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited Admn 3-Jul-1997
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had . .

Cited by:

CitedAllen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
CitedHM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77978

SA and Others, Regina: CACD 15 Feb 2019

Applications concerning both the jurisdiction of the CACD to entertain a Prosecution appeal against a Judge’s ruling of no case to answer and the Prosecution’s substantive challenge (insofar as there is jurisdiction) to that and other various terminating rulings made in these proceedings.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 144

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.634332

Ex parte Central Independent Television: 1991

An appeal under section 159 can be made even after the reporting restriction order has been discharged.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 4

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSarker, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2018
The defendant was to face trial under the 2006 Act. He applied for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the reporting of the proceedings on the grounds that knowledge by the jury of the inquiry and police investigation would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620601

Regina v Offield: CACD 2002

The court considered as an additional ground allowing the withdrawal of an abandonment of an appeal: ‘bad advice given by some legal advisor which has resulted in an unintended, ill considered decision to abandon the appeal’.

Judges:

Judge LJ, nHunt J and Keith J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1630

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Medway CACD 1976
The court had jurisdiction to give an applicant or appellant leave to withdraw a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal only where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity.
Lawson J said: ‘The answer to . .

Cited by:

CitedAhmed, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2010
The defendant had lodged an appeal from his conviction, but then abandoned it. He now sought to have that treated as a nullity.
Held: The application had not shown grounds which might allow the withdrawal of the abandonment, and was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620168

B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 8 Feb 2018

Bail conditions only after detention

B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether there exists a power under the 1971 Act to grant immigration bail to a person who can no longer be lawfully detained.’
Held: The HS’ appeal failed. The statutory provisions allowed limits to be placed on an individuals freedom and had to be strictly and restrictively interpreted. That would not allow the addition of such a power by inference.
Parliament is presumed not to interfere with the liberty of a subject without making such an intention clear. The focus here was on a power not of executive detention but to grant bail. Being detained was a condition precedent for the question of bail to arise.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 5, [2018] WLR(D) 81, [2018] AC 418, [2018] HRLR 10, [2018] 2 All ER 759, [2018] 2 WLR 651, [2018] INLR 315, UKSC 2015/0147

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, Sc Sumary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Nov 14 am Video, SC 2017 Nov 14 pm Video, SC 2017 Nov 15 am Video, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SIACB v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against an order made by the Secretary of State that it will be conducive to the public good that he should be deported, on the grounds that his removal is in the interests of national security. The appellant said that he would not be safe if . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
CitedRegina (Konan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2004
The claimants alleged that their immigration detention had been unlawful.
Held: Collins J said: ‘Since the detention at least since 24 June 2002 was contrary to the defendant’s own policy as published in Chapter 38, it was unlawful. In so . .
At CAB v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See AlsoB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jan-2013
B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to . .
See AlsoB v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian . .
CitedI, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedStellato v The Ministry of Justice CA 14-Dec-2010
The claimant having been released on licence from a prison sentence refused to comply with the conditions of his licence on the ground that he was entitled to be released unconditionally. He was returned to prison. The Divisional Court dismissed his . .
CitedKhera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
CitedIn re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 17-Jan-1994
Laws J considered the Hardial Singh principles, adding: ‘While, of course, Parliament is entitled to confer powers of administrative detention without trial, the courts will see to it that where such a power is conferred the statute that confers it . .
CitedTan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
CitedAR, Regina (on The Application of) (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2016
The court was asked ‘If bail is granted by the First Tier Tribunal on conditions, how long do these conditions last and does the Secretary of State or her immigration officers have authority to vary or relax those conditions?’
Held: Paragraph . .
CitedKambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
CitedKhadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Jun-2005
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
CitedStellato v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Dec-2006
In 1998, the prisoner had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He had been released on licence after serving two thirds of that sentence, but then recalled on three occasions. He now sought unconditional release after serving three quarters of . .
CitedOthman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.604212

Regina v Hammond: 1986

Boreham J said: ‘There is clear authority for a proposition, which is contrary to the decision of the learned judge in this case, that where a defendant in the course of interview, whether by oral reply or by statement in writing, makes excuses for his conduct or assertions in his own favour in a mixed statement, those excuses or assertions form part of the evidence in the case. As is pointed out in Duncan, it may be evidence that in the circumstances will not carry a great deal of weight, but at least it is evidence of that which is asserted. The learned judge in this case, as I have indicated, decided to the contrary. We have no doubt that had the decision in Duncan been brought to the judge’s attention his ruling would have been different.’

Judges:

Boreham J

Citations:

(1986) Cr App R 65

Cited by:

CitedSilverman, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-1987
The defendant appealed against his conviction for offences of for dishonesty. He was said ti have grossly overcharged two spinster sisters for work on their home. He said that the judge had failed properly to put his defence before the jury.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.544348

Regina v Hendon Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1993

The court considered an application for judicial review by the DPP of a decision to acquit the defendant because the prosecutor had failed to appear for trial.
Held: Dismissing the information, and acquitting the accused had been an unreasonable decision which no reasonable bench could have come to. The acquittal was a nullity and mandamus would issue requiring the justices to hear the informations according to law.
Mann LJ said: ‘However, the duty of the court is to hear informations which are properly before it. The prosecution has a right to be heard and there is a public interest that, save in exceptional circumstances, it should be heard’ and ‘We have already stated that in our judgment the respondent justices’ decision to dismiss the information was outwith their statutory power. It was thus a nullity and could not have sustained a plea of autrefois because there had not been a lawful acquittal.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 411

Cited by:

CitedCrown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court Admn 1-May-2003
The CPS appealed against dismissal of their case by the Crown Court after no representative had appeared at court to present the case. Counsel had two cases, and had asked this to be held pending completion of the other which then overran. Counsel . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470924

Case XLII 7 H 4, 36 13 H 4, 8 3 H 7, Ch 1 Br Appeal, 12 Dyer, 296 Stamf 107 Kely 92, 94 Carth 18 4 Co 49 A Cont Br Appeal, 55: 1220

In case of a principal and accessary in murder, the principal is attainted upon an indictment at the suit of the King, and outlawed thereupon ; this attainder will not serve in an appeal to arraign the accessary ; the principal ought to be attainted upon an appeal before the accessary shall be arraigned upon an appeal. An attainder, at the King’s suit, at Common Law did not bar an appeal, if it was brought before the attainder; but if brought after the attainder it was otherwise : but now by the stat. H. 7, ch. 1, neither an attainder nor acquittal at the suit of the King bars an appeal for murder, if clergy be not had. Other felonies remain at the Common Law until the appeal is determined.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 610, (1220-1623) Jenk 75, (1220) 145 ER 53 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461522

Case LXXXVIII 21 E 4, 1 Attaint, Challenge, Judgment: 1220

In an attaint, it is a principal challenge that one of the petty jury is a tenant to one of the grand jury : for if a petty jury be convicted in the attaint, it will be a great prejudice to the seigniory ; for his houses shall be pulled down, and his meadows plowed. The statute of 23 H 8, cap. 3, for attaint, does not takae away the attaint at common law ; but ordains that no attaint shall be brought except in the King’s Bench or Common Pleas at Westminster, and not eIsewhere. In other actions, a challenge that the juror is lord to the party, is only a challenge to the favour.
Juratores debent esse minus suspecti (Jurors should be free of suspicion).

Citations:

[1220] EngR 307, (1220-1623) Jenk 141, (1220) 145 ER 98 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461219

Case LI. 10 E 4, 15 Stamf 95 Indictment, Court: 1220

By indictment at a great court held with a leet at a certain place, day and year, it was found that A. had committed such a felony ; this presentment is void ; for it does not appear whether the said presentment was at the leet or at the court-baron ; if at the court-baron, it is void. So such presentment at the County-Court with the sherrif’s turn ; is also void for the same reason.
By the judges in the Exchequer-chamber

Citations:

[1220] EngR 51, (1220-1623) Jenk 124, (1220) 145 ER 87 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460963

Regina v Palmer: CACD 2002

The Crown applied to be allowed to withdraw its abandonment of an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity, that is to say where ‘the mind of the applicant did not go with his act of abandonment’.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlackwood, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2012
The defendant had succeeded in his appeal against a rape conviction. After the case, and his release, the prosecution sought a retrial. The defendant now argued that the court was functus officio.
Held: An order on an appeal becomes final when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.451797

Case XVI 12 Ass Pl 21 2 E 3, Ch 8: 1220

A commission of oyer and terminer ought not to issue but for enormous crimes. A supersedeas issues to these commissioners to surcease their proceediirigs, they surcease ; a procedendo comes to them afterwards without a new commission ; these commissioners may well proceed upon it. The King may discharge or annul this commission ; he cannot delay, discharge, or stay the proceedings of justice between the subjects by any mandate under the great or privy seal, the commission or patent of the justices being in force : but he may in his own case, so understand this case. By all the justices. Rex quod est injustum facere non potest.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 94, (1220-1623) Jenk 9, (1220) 145 ER 7 (E)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461006

Regina v Medway: CACD 1976

The court had jurisdiction to give an applicant or appellant leave to withdraw a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal only where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity.
Lawson J said: ‘The answer to the first question which we have to decide depends upon whether alongside the jurisdiction which undoubtedly, as all authorities show, exists to give leave to withdraw an abandonment where it is shown that circumstances are present which enable the Court to say that that abandonment should be treated as a nullity, there co-exists an inherent jurisdiction, in other special circumstances, enabling the Court to give such leave. We are satisfied and hold that there is no such jurisdiction. In our judgment the kernel of what has been described as the ‘nullity test’ is that the Court is satisfied that the abandonment was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision, in other words that the mind of the applicant did not go with his act of abandonment. In the nature of things it is impossible to foresee when and how such a state of affairs may come about; therefore it would be quite wrong to make a list, under such headings as mistake, fraud, wrong advice, misapprehension and such like, which purports to be exhaustive of the types of case where this jurisdiction can be exercised. Such headings can only be regarded as guidelines, the presence of which may justify its exercise.’

Judges:

Lawson J

Citations:

(1976) 2 Cr App R 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlackwood, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2012
The defendant had succeeded in his appeal against a rape conviction. After the case, and his release, the prosecution sought a retrial. The defendant now argued that the court was functus officio.
Held: An order on an appeal becomes final when . .
CitedRegina v Offield CACD 2002
The court considered as an additional ground allowing the withdrawal of an abandonment of an appeal: ‘bad advice given by some legal advisor which has resulted in an unintended, ill considered decision to abandon the appeal’. . .
CitedAhmed, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2010
The defendant had lodged an appeal from his conviction, but then abandoned it. He now sought to have that treated as a nullity.
Held: The application had not shown grounds which might allow the withdrawal of the abandonment, and was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.451798

Regina v Samuel: CA 1988

The defendant had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. He asked for a solicitor, but one was refused under section 58 of the 1984 Act. He appealed against his conviction saying that he should have been allowed access to a solicitor.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He could not be refused access to a solicitor after charge where, as here, the initial charges had been of burglary, and the inspector refusing access had to justify the refusal of access to any particular solicitor. The right of a suspect to consult and instruct a lawyer ‘as one of the most important and fundamental rights of a citizen’.

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

[1988] QB 615, [1988] 2 WLR 920, (1987) Cr App R 232

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 58(1)

Cited by:

CitedAmbrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
CitedBeeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445392