Category: Criminal Practice

Kelly, Regina (on the Application of) v Warley Magistrates Court and The Law Society: Admn 31 Jul 2007

Judges:

Laws LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1836 (Admin), [2008] Crim LR 643, (2007) 171 JP 585, [2008] 1 Cr App R 14, [2008] 1 WLR 2001, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2) CA 1964
Lord Denning MR said that the Rules Committee ‘can make rules for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice of the Court, but cannot alter the rules of evidence.’ Public policy protects against disclosure any documents which relate to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rochford CACD 28-Jul-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence after being found in contempt. His lawyers had filed a defence statement, based on the defendant’s case, which the judge felt was inadequate. It was said that the defendant was in contempt after failing to . .
Cited – Regina v Farooqi and Others CACD 30-Sep-2013
Defendants appealed against their conviction of terrorist acts alleging incompetence by their leading counsel.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ Notwithstanding many unfortunate features of this trial the convictions of three of the defendants, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258485

Regina v Rahman; Regina v Akram; Regina v Amin; Regina v Ali: CACD 23 Feb 2007

The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. There had been a joint violent attack, but each said they did not know that the principle assailant carried and would use a knife, and said the judge’s directions on joint enterprise were inadequate, in not requiring the jury to found that they had anticipated an intent to murder rather than only an intent cause serious bodily harm.
Held: The case was a good example of the escalation which takes place in criminal enterprises. The jury had to be sure that the principal had unlawfully caused the death, intending to kill him or cause him really serious bodily harm, and then also that the defendant played some part in the attack. The court set out a series of logical steps through which a court might take a jury. The appeals were dismissed.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Gibbs J, Roderick Evans J

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-2007, [2007] EWCA Crim 342, [2007] 1 WLR 2191

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rahman and Others, Regina v HL 2-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258448

Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others: CA 24 Jul 2007

The defendant had had set aside an interim order for assets recovery. The director appealed against a finding by the court below that he did not have ‘a good arguable case’, justifying an interim recovery order.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On an interim order, the director had to establish a good arguable case that a criminal offence had been commited, that the goods represented the proceeds of that offence in soime way. He did not have to show that a particular person had committed a particular offence on a particular day.
Waller LJ said: ‘In this case, in considering whether a good arguable case has been established, it will be necessary to examine first whether it is arguable on the evidence that unlawful conduct of the kind asserted by the ARA has taken place i.e. mortgage fraud. Next needs to be considered whether it is arguable that the property sought to be frozen represents property originally obtained through such unlawful conduct, but not necessarily through specific examples of that conduct; and finally, if there is some evidence that property was obtained though unlawful conduct, consideration needs to be given to any untruthful explanation or a lack of explanation where opportunity has been given to provide it. An untruthful explanation or a failure to offer an explanation may add strength to the arguability of the case.’
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘As Waller LJ has observed, neither party took issue with the conclusions reached by Sullivan J in R (Director of Assets Recovery Agency) v Green, but in my view that should not deter us from considering them with a critical eye. When deciding what the Director must prove it important to bear in mind that the right to recover property does not depend on the commission of unlawful conduct by the current holder. All that is required is that the property itself be tainted because it, or other property which it represents, was obtained by unlawful conduct. Section 304 allows property to be followed into different hands and although section 308(1) of the Act protects a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, it is not difficult to think of circumstances in which property might be recoverable from someone who is himself entirely innocent. It is important, therefore, that the Director should be required to establish clearly that the property which she seeks to recover, or other property which it represents, was indeed obtained by unlawful conduct.
In order to do that it is sufficient, in my view, for the Director to prove that a criminal offence was committed, even if it is impossible to identify precisely when or by whom or in what circumstances, and that the property was obtained by or in return for it. In my view Sullivan J. was right, therefore, to hold that in order to succeed the Director need not prove the commission of any specific criminal offence, in the sense of proving that a particular person committed a particular offence on a particular occasion. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary for her to prove that specific property was obtained by or in return for a criminal offence of an identifiable kind (robbery, theft, fraud or whatever) or, if she relies on section 242(2), by or in return for one or other of a number of offences of an identifiable kind. If, as I think, that is what the judge meant in paragraph 50 of his judgment, I respectfully agree with him.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Wall LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 766, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2008] Lloyds Rep FC 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others Admn 29-Sep-2006
The respondent had objected that the appointment of an interim receiver had been based upon information obtained in the course of investigations undertaken in connection with different proceedings and allegations.
Held: The enforcement agency . .
Appeal from – Szepietowski v Assets Recovery Agency Admn 28-Nov-2006
The first respondent applied for the freezing and receiving orders in relation to two properties and chattels obtained by the first respondent under the 2002 Act to be discharged on the footing that the Agency Director has not shown that she has a . .
Cited – Director of Assets Recovery Agency and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Green and others Admn 16-Dec-2005
The defendant challenged the making of civil orders for recovery of what were alleged to be the proceeds of crime. They complained that no specific offence had been made out. The court was asked, as a preliminary issue: ‘Whether a claim for civil . .

Cited by:

See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and others ChD 27-Feb-2009
Several of the defendants applied for assets to be excluded from an interim receiving order in order to enable them to meet legal expenses. . .
See Also – Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 19-Mar-2009
The applicant defendants sought to have excluded from the effect of restrictions on their dealing with property, property which was held under trusts.
Held: The applications were rejected. There were well established rules allowing trustees . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others (No 2) ChD 1-Jul-2009
The Agency asked to have set aside four orders allowing the defendant to have excluded from his assets subject to an interim receiving order to allow payment of his legal expenses.
Held: There was no rule that assets once excluded from an . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
Cited – Wiese v The UK Border Agency Admn 29-Jun-2012
The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 21-Jul-2011
The claimant owned properties subject to charges in favour of a bank. The Agency alleged that the properties represented the proceeds of crime. The agency had settled its claim by taking a second charge over one property. When that was sold, only . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258362

Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis: Admn 2 Jul 2007

The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private prosecutor had to demonstrate that it was in the public interest that he should bring a prosecution for an offence against the provision of a public general act.’ and ‘The public interest is established by the nature of the offence created by the statute not by the circumstances alleged or by the relation of the prosecutor to them. ‘ It was not for the justices to examine the purpose of the prosecution. Mitting J said: ‘if the right of private prosecution is to be taken away or subjected to limitation, it is for Parliament to enact and not for the courts by decision to achieve.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1730 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 7.1, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 6(1)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hicks 1855
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a private prosecution under the 1852 Act which controlled the right to set up and operate market stalls. The Act was a local Act. The court considered when magistrates should allow a private . .
Cited – Regina (Gladstone plc) v Manchester City Magistrates Court QBD 18-Nov-2004
It was alleged that at the company’s annual genneral meeting the proposed defendant had assaulted the company’s chairman. The company prosecuted him. The magistrate dismissed the charge saying that the company had no standing to conduct such a . .
Cited – Coles v Coulton 1860
The defendant appealed his conviction under the Act, a private one. It was said that as an innkeeper, he had knowingly suffered four common prostitutes to assemble at and continue in his house and premises contrary to that Act. The Clerk of the . .
Cited – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers HL 26-Jul-1977
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute . .
Cited – Back v Homes 1887
The court was asked whether a Highway Act applied to London.
Held: It did. Mr A L Smith asked: ‘the second question is whether the initiative can be taken by the police in the prosecution under section 72 of the act. Why not? Anybody may . .
Cited – Rubin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1989
The court considered the standing of a private prosecutor. Watkins LJ said: ‘It is, I also believe, equally well established that, generally speaking, any member of the public may lay an information. There are statutory exceptions to that right and . .
Cited – Lake v Smith 1911
The defendant was prosecuted under the 1814 Act for offences of remong shingle from the beach at Sidmouth. He questioned the authority of the prosecutor who was not specificlly authorised under regulations to lay the complaint.
Held: The . .
Cited – Giebler v Manning 1906
The court was asked whether a private person could prosecute a butcher for exposing rotten meat for sale.
Held: Provided the purpose of the offence was to protect the public, any person could bring a prosecution. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Can . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rollins, Regina v CACD 9-Oct-2009
The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had itself the power to prosecute offences under the 2002 Act. The defence said that the FSA’s powers were limited to offences under the 2000 Act. The FSA relied on its common law power to . .
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258157

Leeds City Council v RG: Admn 9 Jul 2007

The court has power to extend the term on an anti-social behaviour order when asked to vary its terms. There was however no right of appeal against the decision to vary an ASBO: ‘The fact that there is no appeal from any variation is a matter which has caused us concern. But it seems to us this is insufficient in itself to justify a departure from the clear meaning of the subsection. The protection for a defendant is, in our view, provided by the fact that an application to vary, if it imposes more stringent obligations (such as greater length) on a defendant, can only succeed if the applying authority can put before the justices material which justifies the extension as necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The usual burden and standard of proof will apply to the determination of that question. Further, in an application to vary length the applying authority will have to persuade the justices that it is appropriate to vary the length of the existing ASBO rather than make application for a new one. There would be a clear rationale for example, for asking for an extension of an ASBO for less than two years, on the basis that the authority did not consider that it was necessary to have a further period as long as the minimum period of two years which would be necessary were a fresh ASBO to be ordered.’

Judges:

Latham LJ, Rafferty J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1612 (Admin), Times 11-Sep-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 3025

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(8)

Cited by:

Cited – Langley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254611

Forbes v The Director of the Assets Recovery Agency: SCIT 16 May 2007

SCIT PROCEEDS OF CRIME – Review of Tribunal’s decision – Appellant failed to attend hearing – Decision given in his absence – Appellant applied for review of decision – Whether Appellant had good and sufficient reason for failing to appear – No – Application dismissed – Special Commissioner (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations, reg 19(1)(b)
PROCEEDS OF CRIME – Order for costs – Appellant requested application hearing and failed to attend – Whether behaviour wholly unreasonable in connection with application hearing – Before Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regs, RD1 – Costs awarded against Appellant

Citations:

[2007] UKSPC SPC00613

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253404

Odebode v Tower Bridge Magistrates Court: Admn 25 Apr 2007

The defendant sought judicial review of the decision to commit him to the crown court for sentence. He complained that in making that decision, the Disrict Judge had come to a conclusion as to a fact in a way which was procedurally unfair.
Held: The DJ had stated that he had intended to commit the claimant for sentence in any event. The court could not go against that, and it was therefore appropriate to allow the case to proceed to the Crown Court but on the basis (applying Gillan) that no conclusion had yet been reached as to the matter of fact dealt with by the DJ.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Rafferty J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1136 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Gillan 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: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253294

Regina v McConnell: CACD 21 May 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H, 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: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252541

Wellington, Regina (on the Application of) v the Director of Public Prosectuions: Admn 1 May 2007

The appeal concerns the effect of breaches of the Code of Practice in relation to identification evidence and the admissibility of certain details on a Police National Computer print-out.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1061 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice Act 2003 117

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252408

Collins and Others, Regina v: CACD 20 Apr 2007

The court (per Gage LJ) considered it strongly arguable that the practice of allowing to the jury the right to acquit an accused at any time after the close of the prosecution case, could not survive Article 6. Gage LJ identified the dangers involved in a judge telling a jury that it has a right to stop a case: ‘First and foremost this practice involves the jury in making a decision which will affect the future conduct of the trial without, as happened in this case, the benefit of speeches from all counsel or any legal directions from the judge. Secondly, the nature of the decision which the jury is asked to make is to decide whether or not the prosecution witnesses may be capable of belief. In other words the jury must reach a provisional conclusion. However, there is a risk that they may go further and decide at that stage that the witnesses are not just capable of belief but they are indeed telling the truth. Such a provisional conclusion, once reached, maybe very difficult to displace. Thirdly, as was explained in Kemp, juries are often keen to register independence and may react against what might be perceived to be pressure from judge to acquit a defendant. Fourthly, even though a judge may strive to avoid inviting a jury to acquit, a practice which has always met with disapproval, it may be very difficult to avoid giving that impression rather than simply informing a jury of its right to acquit, the latter conforming with the old practice before it also was disapproved. As the court said in Kemp ‘It may not be always very easy to distinguish between an invitation to acquit and a mere intimation of a right to stop the case’. Fifthly, this practice is inherently more dangerous when a number of defendants are involved and the factual evidence is complex. Sixthly, it is unfair to the prosecution when it is given no opportunity to address either the judge or the jury and correct a mistaken impression of its case. The same applies to defendants, albeit in all such cases, the presumption will be that the judge has only adopted this procedure in order to obtain, more quickly, verdicts favourable to the defence. Seventhly, there may be particular dangers when as in this case the defence are contemplating not calling any evidence. Eighthly, since the coming into force of the provisions of s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the prosecution has a right of appeal against a determinative ruling of a judge but will have no right of appeal against an acquittal by a jury following a judge informing them that they have a right to stop the case.’

Judges:

Gage LJ, Walker, Openshaw JJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 854

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v SH CACD 3-Aug-2010
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251780

Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: SC 4 Jul 2018

Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, it would be open to the Court to receive closed material disclosed only to the court and a special advocate but not to the Appellants. As will appear, this depends on whether the judicial review proceedings are ‘proceedings in a criminal cause or matter’.
Held: The Appellants are entitled to succeed on this appeal because in its ordinary and natural meaning ‘proceedings in a criminal cause or matter’ include proceedings by way of judicial review of a decision made in a criminal cause, and nothing in the context or purpose of the legislation suggests a different meaning. Judicial review as such cannot be regarded as an inherently civil proceeding. It may or may not be, depending on the subject-matter. What is clear is that it is an integral part of the criminal justice system, whose availability is in many cases essential to the fairness of the process and its compliance with article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Lloyd-Jones JJSC, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 33, [2018] 3 WLR 435, [2019] AC 593, [2018] 4 All ER 561, [2018] 2 Cr App R 33, [2018] WLR(D) 441

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Dec-2017
The claimants alleged that the defendants had been involved in their unlawful rendition in 2004 from Thailand to Libya, in particular now challenging by judicial review the decision not to prosecute certain senior British Officers. . .
Cited – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Regina 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, . .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD 21-Jul-2017
The claimant sought a declaration that the acts of the defendants had contributed to his unlawful rendition into US custody during the Iraq War, and that such actions were criminal. The Defendants applied for a declaration that these are proceedings . .
Cited – Kennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
Cited – Sarkandi and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 14-Jul-2015
Appeal from order allowing use of closed material procedures under section 6 of the 2013 Act.
Richards LJ said: ‘The 2013 Act is one of those in which Parliament has stipulated that a closed material procedure may be permitted by the court. It . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Cited – Blackburn v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis CA 1968
By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law. However, police are servants of no one but the law itself, and a chief officer of police has a wide discretion as to the manner in which the duty is . .
Cited – Corner 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Mohit v The Director of Public Prosecutions of Mauritius PC 25-Apr-2006
(Mauritius) The board was asked whether the decision of the Director to discontinue a private prosecution was a decision capable of review by the courts under the constitution of Mauritius. . .
Cited – Aru, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 30-Jan-2004
Appeal against cautioning after allege public order offence on basis that it had been given other than in accordance with guidelines. . .
Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council QBD 30-Apr-1999
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions HL 7-May-1993
A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for lack of jurisdiction, was not susceptible to Judicial Review. This was a ‘decision affecting conduct of trial’. The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘other than its jurisdiction in matters . .
Cited – Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee HL 1921
Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited – ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
Cited – Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Cited – Ex parte Pulbrook QBD 11-Mar-1892
A judge in chambers gave permission pursuant to the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 to bring proceedings for criminal libel. The proposed defendant sought to appeal. This raised the question whether the order was made in ‘criminal proceedings’ . .
Cited – Khaled and Another v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others Admn 15-Jun-2017
The Claimants were designated by the UN Sanctions Committee in 2007 and 2008 respectively as individuals suspected of being associated with Al-Qaida and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and of being involved in terrorism. They sought judicial . .
Cited – Mcgartland and Another v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 14-Jul-2015
Appeal against a declaration under section 6 of the 2013 Act that proceedings brought by Mr McGartland and his long-term partner, Ms Asher, are ‘proceedings in which a closed material application may be made to the court’. . .
Cited – CF v The Security Service and Others QBD 7-Nov-2013
The claimants alleged that the defendants had been complicit in their unlawful detention, torture and mistreatment whilst held in Somalia pending being brought to the UK in 2011. The defendants now applied for a declaration permitting closed . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co HL 1991
The House heard an application judicially to review a notice served by an inspector of taxes under section 20 of the 1970 Act, requiring T C Coombs and Co to deliver or make available for inspection documents in their possession relevant to the tax . .
Cited – Farrell v Alexander HL 24-Jun-1976
The House considered the construction of a consolidation Act.
Held: It is ordinarily both unnecessary and undesirable to construe a consolidation Act by reference to statutory antecedents, but it is permissible to do so in a case where the . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – McGuinness, Re Application for Judicial Review (No 2) SC 19-Feb-2020
The claimant challenged the calculation of the release date from prison after conviction of MS of the murder of her husband. The AG also argued that the proper appeal was to the Court of Appeal from Northern Ireland and not the Supreme Court.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.619944

Currie, Regina v: CACD 26 Apr 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. The failure of the police to serve him with a notice of intended prosecution invalidated the conviction. The police replied that there was no need for such a notice because there had been an accident. The driver had been stopped but had then driven off. A police officer had had to place her hands on the bonnet to balance herself when avoiding it, and she had lost her grip on the door. The defendant said that the issue of whether there had been an accident should have been decided by a jury.
Held: The case of Seward could be distinguished, because the question of whether there had been an accident related not to the offence itself, but to the procedure involved, and ‘the reference to ‘court’ in what is now s2(3) of the 1988 Act means the judge when the case is proceeding in the crown court. The issues which the judge is required to decide under that subsection will plainly involve issues of fact. Other issues of fact can arise under section 1(1), for example whether the defendant was warned at the time of the offence that he might be prosecuted e.g. a police officer says he was warned but the defendant says he was not. The subsection is silent as to who decides such questions, but it seems to us that the whole of sections 1 and 2 are directed to the need to ensure that as far as possible defendants are not taken by surprise in relation to motoring offences to which s1 of the Act applies. What is required is that by one means or another they should have notice of the relevant event in sufficient time to be able to recall it themselves and recall it to others who may be able to give evidence on their behalf.’

Judges:

Baker LJ, Openshaw J, Sir Richard Curtis

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 926

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Bolkis CCA 1932
The defendant complained that a jury had not been asked a question of fact, namely whether his name and address could not be discovered withut due diligence. The section had a proviso that failure to comply with the section was not a bar to . .
Cited – Regina v Seward 1970
The section in the 1967Act required as a precondition to a request for a breath specimen that an accident had occurred. The defendant complained that this was an issue of fact, but had been decided by the deputy chairman and not the jury.
Cited – Regina v Morris 1972
Whether the particular facts of a case amount to an accident is a question of law. In a case of disputed facts under s2(2) of the 1967 Act it is for the jury to decide the facts and apply to the facts found the judge’s direction as to the meaning of . .
Cited – Regina v Stacey CA 1982
The defendant had been arrested for driving whilst unfit through drink. He was warned three hours later that he might be prosecuted for reckless driving. In fact he was not charged with any offence relating to drink. When tried for reckless driving . .
Cited – Fenton v J Thorley and Co Ltd HL 1903
A workman who ruptured himself by an act of over-exertion in trying to turn a wheel was held to have suffered an injury ‘by accident.’ The act of turning the wheel was not in itself an accident. But the injury which the man sustained while carrying . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Billingham 1979
Bridge LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘accident’, and, after saying that there had been many authorities for different stautory and contractual contexts, said: ‘It is, in my judgment, a word which has a perfectly well understood meaning in . .
Cited – Gibson v Dalton CA 1980
The requirement to notify a defendant of the possibility of a prosecution is to allow him to preserve any necessary evidence. . .
Cited – Bemner v Westwater HCJ 1993
A police officer was driving in the opposite direction to the accused. He came round a bend in the road to face two vehicles, one was driven by the accused overtaking the other vehicle. He was in the police officer’s path. The officer braked, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251506

Chin-Charles v Regina: CACD 3 Jul 2019

Two applications for leave to appeal against sentence – consideration of the length, nature and structure of sentencing remarks in addition to the individual merits of the applications.

Judges:

The Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1140

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639319

Revenue and Customs Prosecution Service v Kearney: Admn 27 Feb 2007

The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office appealed by way of case stated from a decision of the Crown Court to extend by four months the time limit available to pay a confiscation order made under section 71 of the 1988 Act. The question was whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to vary or extend the time to pay outside the 28 day slip rule period.
Held: It did not. The appeal was allowed and the order extending time to pay was quashed. The Prosecutions Office had put forward written submissions including this: ‘If here the respondent needed an extension of time to pay, the proper course, leaving aside any appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, was to apply to the Magistrates who have both the requisite powers of enforcement and dispensing powers to do justice in the individual case (see section 76 and section 77 of the Magistrates Courts Act).’ The Court said: ‘The reality of the confiscation order is that it is to pay a given amount within a given period or face a sentence of imprisonment in default. The given period of time to pay is an integral part of the order … The right answer was for the respondent to seek to persuade the Magistrates in the exercise of their discretion, not then to activate the default sentence so that any injustice, if such there was, could have been addressed.’

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 640 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Greenacre Admn 3-Apr-2007
Following his conviction for false accounting, a confiscation order was made against the defendant. After agreeing various adjournments the prosecutor said that the magistrates court had no power to allow such an adjournment under section 75(2) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251150

Ali, Altaf v Crown Prosecution Service, West Midlands: CACD 22 Mar 2007

The defendant was first arrested in 1997, but only re-arrested in 2004. He complained that the delay affected his right to a fair trial within a proper time. The judge accepted this but the trial proceeded, the judge denying a claim of abuse of process.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The delay meant that documents which might have been available were so no longer. Among theme were a complaint to CICA thought to make false allegations against a defendant. What was missing was crucial to the assessment of the complainant’s credibility. The convictions were unsafe.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Teare J, Paget QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 691

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Smolinski CACD 2004
When a defendant argues for an abuse of process from delay, the court should make its ruling only after the close of the prosecution case, when the effect of the delay may be properly understood. A stay should be exceptional. . .
Cited – Attorney 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 – Regina v Medway CACD 25-Mar-1999
The court considered a complaint as to the prosecution’s failure to preserve evidence: ‘We recognise that in cases where evidence has been tampered with, lost or destroyed it may well be that a defendant will be disadvantaged. It does not . .
Cited – Regina v Feltham Magistrate’s Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Feb-2001
The court considered how cases should be handled where video evidence of relevance to a defendant’s case had been destroyed, and the defendant asserted abuse of process.
Held: The discretion to stay proceedings should be employed only in . .
Cited – Attorney-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 . .
Cited – Regina v Dobson CACD 10-Jul-2001
The loss of video evidence by the prosecutor was not a ground for a stay of the case. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250455

Gillan 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. He now appealed a decision that that court did not have the jurisdiction to do so.
Held: The court had had the jurisiction to re-open the issue and to hold a fresh Newton hearing where this was required to do justice in the case.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Forbes J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 380 (Admin), Times 26-Mar-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Cited – Loade v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1990
The court stated that there is either no jurisdiction to hear an appeal by way of case stated in relation to an interlocutory decision, in criminal proceedings or that it is the court’s invariable practice not to entertain one. A court might simply . .
Cited – 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.
Cited – 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. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Odebode v Tower Bridge Magistrates Court Admn 25-Apr-2007
The defendant sought judicial review of the decision to commit him to the crown court for sentence. He complained that in making that decision, the Disrict Judge had come to a conclusion as to a fact in a way which was procedurally unfair.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249872

Malcolm v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 27 Feb 2007

The defendant appealed against her conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The justices had retired and began to announce their decision on one point of law. Defence counsel then raised another matter in closing, and the magistrates allowed the prosecution further opportunity to bring evidence.
Held: The magistrates had this discretion, and the appeal failed. The action by the defence was a classic improper ambush defence, and was so exceptional as to allow the magistrates to act as they had.

Judges:

Maurice lKay LJ, Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2007, [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – James v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 13-Nov-2015
The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249380

H, 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 at preparatory hearings has been the subject of dispute. Lord Nichols said: ‘the underlying object of a preparatory hearing is to conduct part of the trial before the jury is sworn because of the benefits this course is likely to have. The preparatory hearing procedure is not intended to be the means for deciding questions which can and should be decided in advance of the trial.’ Once the preparatory hearing has started, the trial itself has started, even though a jury may not yet be empanelled, and the ruling had been made as part of that hearing. The ruling itself was not a ruling of law, and no appeal lay against it.
Lord Roger said: ‘a judge does not have power to determine an application for disclosure within the scope of a preparatory hearing.’ However, he can determine such a question whenever iI is made.
Lord Mance said: ‘Once a preparatory hearing has validly been ordered, the power to make a ruling under section 9 is thus on any view exercisable – whatever the direct or dominant object of the application or ruling – whenever the judge reasonably considers that it would also serve a useful trial purpose within one of the heads in section 7(1) to make such a ruling. Courts do not and should not have to engage in minute and, as the authorities show, sometimes elusive arguments, about whether the direct or dominant purpose of the ruling would be one specified in section 7(1); I find it difficult to envisage any case, from now on, in which an appellate court should entertain an argument or refuse to hear an appeal from a ruling on a subject-matter falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (since the 2003 Act came into force) (d) of section 9(3) on the ground that the purpose of the ruling fell outside section 7(1). ‘

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Mance

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-2007, [2007] UKHL 7, [2007] 3 All ER 269, [2007] Crim LR 731, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 6, [2007] 2 AC 270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 8, Criminal Justice Act 1987 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex parte Customs and Excise Commissioners QBD 1993
The court found that there was one preparatory hearing in existence, and that that had been conducted before Judge Anwyl-Davies QC. But the trial was listed for hearing before Judge Mota Singh QC, simply because of a direction by the presiding judge . .
Cited – In re Gunawardena, Harbutt and Banks CACD 1990
The defendant applied to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.
Held: The application for leave to appeal was rejected. The application to stay was not within the ambit of the preparatory hearing and therefore . .
Cited – Regina v Hedworth CACD 20-Sep-1996
The court allowed amendment of the indictment to reflect the law as demonstrated in Preddy, and at a preparatory hearing application was made to quash the amended indictment on the basis that the charges were not supported by evidence in the . .
Cited – In re Kanaris (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant faced charges with others on the same indictment. The judge called a preparatory hearing under the 1996 Act, against the others, but held a separate hearing for the defendant, at which he held a similar preparatory hearing for him . .
Cited – Regina v Van Hoogstraten CACD 12-Dec-2003
The prosecution appealed against the refusal of the crown court to remit the case for retrial.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against this ruling because it was not within the ambit of section 29(2) of the 1996 Act. . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 9-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v G and B CACD 2004
Rose LJ said: ‘Both in principle and pragmatically, whether a solicitor or barrister can properly continue to act is a matter for him or her and not the court, although of course the court can properly make observations on the matter’. . .
Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD 1992
The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD 15-Jul-1992
The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
Cited – Regina v Jennings, Regina v Johnson, Regina v Mullins CACD 6-Sep-1993
No appeal lies against a Crown Court decision not to sever an indictment at a preparatory hearing. As an interlocutory order no appeal lay. . .
Cited – Regina v Claydon; Regina v Regina v Hall; Regina v Costall; Regina v French CACD 13-Jun-2001
The defendants faced substantial trials involving drugs offences. At a preparatory hearing the court made decisions about abuse of process and as to what evidence might be admitted. The prosecutor said there was no right of appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc) v Birmingham Corporation HL 1970
The mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing, does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. The position would be different if the provisions of the . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Goldstone CACD 2005
The Court rejected a submission that the questions as to disclosure raised before it fell outside the ambit of a preparatory hearing. . .
Cited – Regina v Clowes CCC 1992
. .
Cited – Regina v McConnell CACD 21-May-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 9-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
Cited – Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – O’Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc CA 1984
Workers claimed to be employees.
Held: They were not such. Their contract reserved the right to choose whether or not to work and for the employer not to give them work. The question of whether the facts which are found or admitted, fall one . .
Cited – Morren v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council 1965
The court was asked whether the plaintiff had been an employee.
Held: ‘once the primary facts are found, then it is a pure question of law as to what is the reasonable inference based on the legal interpretation of the contract.’ . .
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249334

Regina v Birchall: CACD 20 Jan 1998

The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial
Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard directions to the jury on the drawing of inferences from a defendant’s silence in order to avoid any risk of injustice.
As to the model directions, Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘The Court was reluctant to countenance the view that direction of a jury called for the mouthing of a number of mandatory formulae, and departure by the trial judge from a prescribed form of words would by no means always justify the upsetting of a jury’s verdict. However, standard directions were devised to serve the ends of justice and the Court must be astute to ensure that these ends were not jeopardised by failure to give directions where they were called for. The drawing of inferences from silence was a particularly sensitive area . .’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 177, [1999] Crim LR 311

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Doldur CACD 7-Dec-1999
A jury cannot convict solely on the basis of an inference, drawn under section 34, from the combination of an accused’s failure to give at interview, an explanation relied upon later at court. Additional evidence could be found not only from the . .
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.153051

People v Santamaria: 12 Apr 1991

(California Court of Appeal) Adjournment of criminal trial after jury retired for verdict.

Citations:

(1991) 229 Cal App 3d 272

Links:

Justia

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Johnson v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 3-Jul-2019
Public Office Misconduct – Acting As not While
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to issue a summons against him alleging three offences of misconduct in public office. He was said to have issue misleading statements in support of the campaign leading up to the Referendum on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639269

Director of Public Prosecutors v Gane: Admn 1991

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol and being in charge of a vehicle with excess alcohol. It was clear that on the facts the former charge included the latter. The magistrates found the facts proved but convicted only on the driving charge and acquitted on the lesser charge. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated. The justices stated in the case that they had concluded that it would be oppressive to convict on the lesser charge because they were only dealing with a single set of facts.
Held: The court said that the Magistrates’ Court was wrong to acquit on the lesser charge. Taylor LJ said: ‘If, however, the prosecution had at that stage wished to keep its position open, pending any possible appeal with regard to the driving offence, certain alternatives were available.
Section 10 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides for adjournment of trial as follows: ‘A magistrates’ court may at any time, whether before or after beginning to try an information, adjourn the trial, and may do so, notwithstanding anything in this Act, when composed of a single justice.’
The justices could, therefore, have adjourned the alternative charge No.2 sine die, which would have left it open for them to pursue it to conviction had the matter been referred back after a successful appeal on charge 4. Alternatively, they could have convicted of it and imposed a concurrent disqualification on that charge but no further penalty if they felt it would have been oppressive to have imposed any further fine. The result of that would have been that if a successful appeal had been mounted in regard to the driving charge there would still have remained a conviction on the alternative offence of charge 2 with an appropriate disqualification, although of course no fine.’

Judges:

Taylor LJ, Rougier J

Citations:

[1991] Crim LR 711, [1991] JP 846

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dyer, Regina (on The Application of) v Watford Magistrates Court Admn 16-Jan-2012
The appellant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to convict him of the two offences of causing racially aggravated fear or provocation of violence, contrary to section 31(1)(a) of the 1998 Act, and of causing fear or provocation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.510022

Suffolk County Council v Rexmore Wholesale Service Limited: Admn 1994

A costs order had been made against the prosecution, who now appealed.
Held: It was necessary to look at the relevant decisions at the point the proceedings were instituted rather than applying a level of knowledge gathered later: ‘With the greatest respect to the Magistrates, one has to say that there is a substantial degree of hindsight in that judgment. Looking at the matter in advance, as prosecutors have to, there was clearly a serious question to be discussed, and properly brought before the Magistrates. In my judgment, had the Magistrates considered that aspect of the case, and considered the prosecutor’s position before the case was brought, they could not have concluded that the prosecution had been an improper one in terms of the guidance given by Nolan LJ in DPP v Denning.’

Judges:

Buxton J

Citations:

[1994] 159 JP 390

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Director of Public Prosecutions v Denning 1991
Nolan LJ considered the test for whether proceedings had been begiun ‘unnecessarily or improperly’so as to decide the question of costs awards in Magistrates proceedings, saying: ‘I would add in this connection that the word ‘improper’ in this . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bentley-Thomas v Winkfield Parish Council Admn 5-Feb-2013
The appellant challenged an order to pay over andpound;18,000 costs after losing her complaint of statutory nuisance against the Parish Council. She had complained as to the noise coming from a playground.
Held: She had brought the proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.510705

Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2008

The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the instigation of the government of Saudi Arabia, with a threat of ceasing co-operation in security arrangements.
Held: The rule of law required that any investigation should be stopped only by the director of the Serious Fraud Office on his own and independent assessment of the matter. ‘The Director failed to appreciate that protection of the rule of law demanded that he should not yield to the threat. Nor was adequate consideration given to the damage to national security and to the rule of law by submission to the threat. No-one took any steps to explain that the attempt to halt the investigation by making threats could not, by law, succeed. The Saudi threat would have been an exercise in futility, had anyone acknowledged that principle. We are driven to the conclusion that the Director’s submission to the threat was unlawful.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), Times 10-Apr-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Admn 17-Jan-2008
The court considered interlocutory matters in the forthcoming application for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to proceed with an investigation of allegations of bribery under the 2001 Act. . .
See Also – Corner House Research and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 4-Feb-2008
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision by the Director to halt the investigation of alleged payment of bribes by a British defence company to members of the Saudi Royal family, which would be an offence under the 2001 Act.
Held: . .
Cited – Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
Cited – Sharma and others v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 20-Jun-2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The issue in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to remuneration as members of the House of Representatives on a delay in the House sitting after an election. . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Regina v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne QBD 17-May-2000
The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the Director not to prosecute anybody after the death of their brother in prison custody, and while under restraint by prison officers. The jury at a coroner’s inquest had returned a verdict . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 12-Oct-2006
The claimants sought that the defendant should issue a request to the US authorities for their release from detention at Guantanamo Bay.
Held: The courts would not be able to intervene by judicial review, and would be reluctant to intervene in . .
Cited – Bermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – Regina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
Cited – Regina v Coventry Airport Ex Parte Phoenix Aviation; Regina v Dover Harbour Board Ex Parte Gilder Admn 12-Apr-1995
A local authority operator of an airport suspended flights on aircraft transporting livestock; a harbour authority refused to allow cross-Channel services for the export of live animals; and a local authority challenged the decision of a statutory . .
Cited – Regina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Corner 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: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.266584

Smith v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 15 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed by way of case stated against a decision in his case where he was to be prosecuted for possession of a prohibited weapon, a sawn off shotgun. The court had failed to give him opportunity to make representations as required under the 1998 Act. After committal on an indictable only offence, the case had been redrafted as an either way offence.

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3506 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(a), Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249132

Secretary of State for the Home Department v E: Admn 16 Feb 2007

The claimant challenged a control order made against him, saying that the respondent had renewed the order despite failing to keep under review the possibility of prosecuting him, and that his mental health had suffered as a result of the order and that that had not been taken account of.
Held: Ony very limited weight should be given to E’s mental condition in the context of article 5. The order was likely to be renewed for successive twelve month periods. The applicant was significantly less socially isolated than controlled persons in othercases, but it was particularly importance that there was the same control over visitors to the home and meetings outside the home, and the same liability to spot checks and searches by the police at any time. These features made the obligations particularly intense somewhat as if he were accommodated in prison. The case was finely balanced but the cumulative effect of the restrictions was to deprive E of his liberty in breach of article 5 of the Convention.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 233 (Admin), [2007] HRLR 472

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and S CA 17-May-2007
The Secretary appealed against the refusal of renewal of a control order. It had been said that the secretary had failed properly to consider on the renewal whether there was sufficient evidence to justify instead a prosecution.
Held: The . .
At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another HL 31-Oct-2007
The applicant, who was subject to a control order, complained that the respondent had failed as required to keep under review the possibility of a prosecution, and had renewed the order without satisfying that requirement.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248948

In re B: CACD 27 Oct 2006

Media bodies appealed against an order postponing publicity about the trial of the defendant until the conclusion of the trial of his co-defendants. He had asked to be sentenced on his plea rather than to have his sentence postponed. The judge was concerned at the possible effect of great publicity on the trial to follow.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Two principles were at issue, the freedom of the press, and a defendant’s right to a fair trial, but ‘broadcasting authorities and newspaper editors should be trusted to fulfil their responsibilities accurately to inform the public of court proceedings and to exercise sensible judgment about the publication of comment which might interfere with the administration of justice. ‘ Responsible editors should expected to avoid the risks of committing contempt. The court also recognised the respect given by juries to defendants’ rights to a fair trial, and the ability of judges to assist them with directions.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge, President, Mr Justice Penry Davey and Mr Justice Mackay

Citations:

Times 06-Nov-2006, [2007] EMLR 145, [2006] EWCA Crim 2692, [2007] UKHRR 577, [2007] HRLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247629

Regina v Kordansinski: CACD 7 Nov 2006

The defendant objected to the admission against him of documents of his convictions for similar sexual offences in Poland.
Held: So far as the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn ever applied in criminal cases, it was not disapplied by section 99 of the 2003 Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice May, Mr Justice David Clarke and Mr Justice Teare

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 2984

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 99(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not applicable – Hollington v F Hewthorne and Co Limited CA 1943
The defendant had been involved in a road accident in which the plaintiff’s son had died, and had been convicted of careless driving. The plaintiff as the personal representative of his son sued for damages for negligence, seeking to rely on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247644

Da Silva, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 14 Dec 2006

An innocent bystander had been shot dead by police mistaking him for a suicide bomber. The claimant, a cousin, challenged decisions not to prosecute any officer for murder or manslaughter or any other criminal offence.
Held: Review was refused: ‘A decision to prosecute can have a profound effect on the accused; and a decision not to prosecute, especially in circumstances where it is believed or asserted that the decision is or may be erroneous, can affect public confidence in the integrity and competence of the criminal justice system. The approach in the Code is that a prosecution must not go ahead if there is no realistic prospect of conviction, and that it is not the role of the CPS simply to give cases a public airing regardless of the strength of the evidence. Although it has been suggested that the CPS should recognise a category of cases where, because of the public interest in holding a trial in open court, a prosecution should be brought even though there is assessed to be insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, it would be unfair and incompatible with a consistent application of the principles of justice to adopt a different standard for a particular category of suspect and to subject persons within that category to the burden of a prosecution even where there was not a realistic prospect of conviction.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Forbes and Mackay JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 10, Europeana Convention on Human Rights 2

Citing:

Cited – Regina v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne QBD 17-May-2000
The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the Director not to prosecute anybody after the death of their brother in prison custody, and while under restraint by prison officers. The jury at a coroner’s inquest had returned a verdict . .

Cited by:

At Admn – Patricia Armani Da Silva v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Sep-2010
The applicant complained of the failure to convict anyone of a serious criminal offence after her innocent cousin was shot dead by police officers who said they mistook him for a suicide bomber. . .
At Admn – Patricia Armani Da Silva v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2012
The claimant’s cousin had been shot by police mistakenly thinking he was a terrorist with a suicide bomb. . .
At Admn – Patricia Armani Da Silva v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jul-2012
The claimant’s innocent cousin Jean Charles de Menezes had been shot and killed by police officers seeking a suicide bomber. She had complained that after investigation, no police officer had been prosecuted for any serious offence of murder or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247468

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bentley: Admn 7 Jul 1993

The claimant campaigned to correct what she said was a miscarriage of justice in the prosecution and conviction of her brother Derek Bently for murder. He had been hanged, and she challenged the refusal of a posthumous free pardon.
Held: A decision to refuse to issue any pardon based on a failure to identify the possibility in law of a conditional pardon may be reviewable

Judges:

Watkins, Neill LJJ, Tuckey J

Citations:

[1993] EWHC Admin 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245690

Regina v Director of Public Prosections ex parte Hallas: 1988

Without access to documents held by the police, a private prosecution would or could ‘wither on the vine’.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

(1988) 87 Cr App R 340

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.377732

McKay v The United Kingdom: ECHR 3 Oct 2006

The applicant said that his human rights had been infringed under laws which required him to apply to the high court for bail rather than to a magistrate, necessitating a further four day wait before his application for bail was considered. He had been remanded after admitting an armed robbery, though the police had not objected to bail. Because the offence was one scheduled by the 2000 Act under the 1996 Act.
Held: The provisions were not incompatible with the Convention. The magistrate was in a position to examine other elements such as the lawfulness of his detention and the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion of having committed the offence. There was no possible arbitrariness or abuse to require an application to the High Court which had in fact heard the application within a day. As to article 5: ‘Article 5 of the Convention is, together with articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of an individual and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty.’

Citations:

Times 30-Oct-2006, 543/03, [2006] ECHR 820, (2007) 44 EHRR 41

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 2 3 4, Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, Terrorism Act 2000 67(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246586

Thompson and Another, Regina v: CACD 22 Nov 2006

The prosecution sought leave to appeal the quashing of an indictment.
Held: Section 53 of the 2003 Act could not be used for this purpose. The defendants had successfully challenged the adequacy of the Crown’s case before trial. The defendants had not therefore been arraigned, and the dismissal did not amount to a formal acquittal which could allow the appeal requested. Parliament has not provided for an appeal against the dismissal of a charge under sections 58-61 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rix, Mrs Justice Dobbs and Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2849, Times 06-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1123, [2007] 2 All ER 205, [2007] 1 Cr App R 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 58

Cited by:

Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Evans and Others QBD 14-Nov-2014
The court faced an application by the SFO for a voluntary bill of indictment. Similar charges against the defendants had been discharged. The allegations involved very substantial alleged frauds. . .
Cited – Edmondson and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Course of Transmission includes Voicemails
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to intercept telephone voicemail messages whilst employed in various positions in newspapers. The issue boiled down to when the ‘course of transmission’ of a voicemail message ended, that is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246350

TH v The Crown Court Wood Green and others: Admn 31 Oct 2006

The claimant challenged his imprisonment under the 1966 Act for non-co-operation as a prosecution witness. He had shown fear of the defendants and repeatedly failed to attend court or to be co-operative. He had completed his evidence, and the defendants had declined to ask him any questions. The judge had remanded him in custody against the possibility that he might be recalled.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2683 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 1670, [2007] 2 All ER 259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 4(3)

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245976

Charlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 11 Sep 2006

The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different magistrates court. That request was successful, but the second court withdrew its summons when informed of the first application.
Held: The court should distinguish between a case where it is sought to bring a private prosecution where there is already a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in being and a case where the Crown Prosecution Service has discontinued a prosecution. This critical difference means that the fact the prosecution does not reach the threshold set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors does not preclude a private prosecution from being instituted if there is no prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in being. The first magistrate’s decision was therefore to be reconsidered.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2318 (Admin), Times 29-Sep-2006, [2007] 3 All ER 163, [2006] 1 WLR 349

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 1(1)

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhry QBD 9-Jul-1993
The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .

Cited by:

Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245058

Regina v Boyle and Another: CACD 25 Aug 2006

The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had in fact steered the jury away from drawing adverse inferences, and if properly given might have made their position worse.

Judges:

Waller LJ, MacKay, Cox JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Adetoro CACD 2006
. .
Cited – Condron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .
Cited – Regina 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, . .
Cited – Steele, 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 . .
Cited – Beckles v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Oct-2002
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none . .
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244681

Thomas v Central Criminal Court; Stubbs v Same: Admn 7 Jul 2006

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions to extend the custody time limits.
Held: Where a further extension is sought, it is in the public interest and the interests of justice that the court should confine its consideration under paragraph (b) to whether there has been due diligence and expedition in relation to matters giving rise to the need for the further extension, and ‘in the present case the application for a further extension was rightly foucsed on the correct question. This question was whether looking at the circumstances as a whole the delay on the part of the prosecution consitutes a lack of due diligence and expedition. ‘

Judges:

Laws LJ, Walker J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2138 (Admin), Times 11-Aug-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Gibson and Another) v Winchester Crown Court QBD 24-Feb-2004
The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244506

Javid v Regina: CACD 28 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed conviction and sentence of 25 years for conspiracy to supply cocaine. He had imported 196kg of cocaine. He said that his defence team had failed to put before the court evidence corroborating his own case which evidence was obtainable.
Held: ‘the fact that the jury ask a question does not necessarily mean that the matter or issue to which it relates is critical to the outcome of the trial.’ The evidence was either available and not presented, or unhelpful to the defendant. The appeal against conviction failed. The judge’s starting point of 25 years for supply of andpound;12 million pounds of cocaine was correct, and leave to appeal the sentence was refused.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1947

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968 52(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244000

Levey, Regina v: CACD 27 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were responsible for the death.
Held: A prosecutor in a criminal a case has a broader duty than does a party in civil proceedings. The purpose of the Children Act proceedings were different from the present case. ‘Although concern about him flowed from E’s death, the proceedings brought and conducted by the local authority were not criminal proceedings in which the ultimate question for decision was whether the appellant had killed E. Neither of E’s parents was being prosecuted. No one was. And whatever the outcome, neither was, nor could be, convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence. For this purpose, the court responsible for the care proceedings was bereft of jurisdiction. It was not ‘competent’ to decide criminal proceedings.’ The court did was not suggest alteration in the practice of the Family Division that the criminal proceedings of themselves were not a reason to adjourn the care proceedings, because delay is detrimental generally to the children but did refer to the desirability of liaison between the relevant authorities and some linkage between directions hearings as the cases progress.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge, President, Sir Mark Potter President, Crane J

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1902, Times 24-Aug-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3092

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reichel v Magrath PC 1889
The new vicar of Sparsholt, Dr Magrath, was able to rely on the abuse of process even though he had not been party to earlier proceedings between Reichel and the Bishop of Oxford and the Queen’s College and so was not bound by any issue estoppel . .
Cited – Stevenson v Garnett 1898
AL Smith LJ: ‘The court ought to be slow to strike out a statement of claim or defence, and to dismiss an action as frivolous and vexatious yet it ought to do so when as here, it has been shown that the identical question sought to be raised has . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General HL 1980
The applicant sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of a lottery scheme whilst criminal proceedings were pending against it for the same scheme.
Held: It was not necessary to decide whether a declaration as to the criminality or otherwise . .
Cited – Regina v Steidl and Baxendale-Walker 27-Jun-2002
(Southwark Crown Court) The case was a prosecution for serious fraud. In civil proceedings, despite evidence to suggest a powerful case for dishonesty, a High Court judge had concluded that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant, . .
Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD 1967
Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
Cited – Regina v Stocker CCC 23-Nov-2004
(Central Criminal Court) The court was due to try a case alleging that the defendant had killed her child. In care proceedings Hedley J had concluded that a mother had killed her child, but he was positively satisfied that she lacked the intention . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Hollington v F Hewthorne and Co Limited CA 1943
The defendant had been involved in a road accident in which the plaintiff’s son had died, and had been convicted of careless driving. The plaintiff as the personal representative of his son sued for damages for negligence, seeking to rely on the . .
Cited – Regina v Bingley Magistrates Court Ex Parte Morrow QBD 28-Apr-1994
A private prosecution was started by summons.
Held: The court accepted that justices were entitled to exercise their discretion not to issue one, a comforting re-assurance that the magistrates were not obliged to ‘rubber stamp’ the process by . .
Cited – Regina v Lattimore CACD 1975
‘. . . It is also inconceivable that the court would receive inadmissible evidence; for the court must act according to law.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Williams, Regina v Smith CACD 27-Jan-1994
The defendant’s appeal was allowed after the police evidence against him was discredited in later proceedings. . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards CACD 1991
The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 14 years. The evidence included police evidence of his confessions in interview. He challenged the veracity of the interview notes, alleging that the police officers concerned . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mote v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another CA 14-Dec-2007
The appellant was accused of having received income benefits to which he was not entitled. A prosecution was commenced and at the same time he appealed to the tribunal against the decision that there had been an overpayment. The authorities . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243981

Mckinsley v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 25 Jul 2006

The defendant had been made subject to a confiscation order. He now sought a certificate of inadequacy.
Held: The appeal failed. The procedure for obtaining a certificate of inadequacy related only to circumstances arising following the confiscation order. The Acts provided a proper avenue of appeal against the order itself, and the use of this procedure in these circumstances risked becoming an abuse of the court process.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1092 Civ, Times 22-Aug-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243420

Cleary, Regina (on the Application of) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and others: Admn 26 Jul 2006

The police sought the closure of premises under an anti-social behaviour order.
Held: A body seeking such an order had an obligation to serve written copies of the evidence upon which they wished to rely on the proposed respondent. The respondent had therefore been entitled to the adjournment he sought but was refused by the magistrates when such evidence was not served.
May LJ referred to the legislative intention that closure orders should be dealt with speedily. In that context, it was obviously important that the police provide affected persons with all the information that they should fairly have, in sufficient time for the hearing to be completed within the period contemplated.
As to disclosure he said: ‘I have said that the police should serve in advance written versions of the evidence that they propose to adduce. The claimant in the present proceedings maintains that the police should also, on request, make further wide-ranging disclosure of material which they may not wish to adduce, but which may be generally relevant. This, in my view, is generally too broad and would tend to frustrate the statutory expectation that applications for closure orders should be dealt with expeditiously.
The Civil Procedure Rules do not specifically apply in magistrates’ courts. But CPR r 31(6) seems to me to be a good guide to what is necessary and proportionate. This provides that standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only the documents on which he relies and documents which adversely affect his own case or support another party’s case. The Commissioner is concerned that a requirement such as this would be imprecise so as to frustrate the statutory purpose. He suggests that there should be no initial duty to disclose in advance of a written statement on behalf of the defendant of the nature of his defence and a specific request for particular admissible documents relevant to that defence. I have some general sympathy with this, in that disclosure under the CPR supposes that the parties have exchanged pleadings crystallizing the issues. Requests for documents should certainly be for specific relevant documents and not a fishing expedition. But applications for closure orders threaten to trample on defendant’s article 8 rights and defendants may be vulnerable and unrepresented. I think, therefore, that the police should disclose documents which clearly and materially affect their case adversely or support the defendant’s case.’
May LJ continued: ‘In my view, it is not appropriate for this Court to address and decide questions of disclosure at a detailed level. We should be prepared to give some general guidance. In doing so, I note and respect submissions to the effect that judicial review applications of procedural decisions of magistrates’ courts should not normally be entertained. I generally agree with and endorse this. Such applications are normally unnecessary and disruptive. It is normally preferable for the proceedings to continue and for any surviving challenge to be made on appeal or otherwise after the magistrates have made a substantive decision . . ‘

Judges:

May LJ, Langstaff J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1869 (Admin), Times 12-Sep-2006, [2007] 1 WLR 1272, [2007] 1 All ER 270

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003

Cited by:

Cited – Newman v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis Admn 25-Mar-2009
The defendant appealed against the admission of evidence on the respondent’s application for a football bannng order. A witness statement was based on intelligence reports which meant that the witness could not be effectively examined by he defence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243422

Loizou, Regina v: CACD 14 Jul 2006

The defendant appealed against her conviction for assisting in the disposal of the proceeds of criminal activity, saying that the judge had incorrectly ruled that she had waived legal privilege as to the advice given to her at the police station, and that an inference could be drawn under section 34. Under cross examination she had said not only that she had been advised to make no comment, but also the reasons for it. She said that she had given her solicitor the version of events she put forward at trial.
Held: Once the defendant had opened up the suggested reason for her silence, it allowed opposing counsel to probe whether that reason could possibly explain not saying (as she now was saying at trial) that she was an innocent dupe who had no connection with the transaction in question except as an interpreter. Waiver, when it occurs, is not all or nothing. Waiver can be, and often is, partial. In every case of waiver, the question what the waiver has let in is determined by the test of fairness, or, to put it another way, what is necessary to avoid there being left a misleading impression by revelation of part only of the privileged communications, or the defendant, in colloquial terms, ‘having his cake and eating it’.
Criminal property within section 327 meant property which was already criminal at the time of the transfer, by reason of constituting or representing a benefit from earlier criminal conduct and not the conduct which was the subject of the indictment.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Leveson, Beatson JJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1719, [2005] 2 CAR 618

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 327(1)(d), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Burnell v British Transport Commission CA 1956
The plaintiff sought damages for personal injury. When his witness was cross-examined on his earlier statement, he agreed he had made the statement. Counsel for the Plaintiff asked to see the whole statement. Counsel for the Defendant objected on . .
Cited – Nea Karteria Maritime Co Ltd v Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamship Corporation (No 2) 11-Dec-1978
The court considered disclosure of a legally privileged note of an interview: ‘I believe that the principle underlying the rule of practice exemplified by Burnell v British Transport Commission is that, where a party is deploying in court material . .
See Also – Regina 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:

Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Cited – Re D (a child) CA 14-Jun-2011
In the course of care proceedings, the mother had revised her version of events, and then explained why. The father sought disclosure of the attendance notes of her solicitor, saying that she had waived any privilege in the advice given. She now . .
Cited – GH, Regina v SC 22-Apr-2015
Appeal against conviction for entering into an arrangement for the retention of criminal funds. The defendant said that at the time of the arrangement there were not yet any criminal funds in existence. A had set up websites intending to con . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243406

Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates Court and others: Admn 18 Jul 2006

The defendants were said to have been found in possession of false passports. They successfully argued that the offence charged under the 1981 Act had been repealed by the 2006 Act. The prosecutor argued that a Schedule only came into effect when explicitly made to come into effect.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The 2006 Act came into effect when stated, but the court accepted the argument that ‘it is clear from the form and terms of the ICA 2006 that the repeals effectuated by it are repeals consequential upon the bringing into force of the relevant new provisions. To that end, the repeal Schedule 2 needs to be brought into force simultaneously with the new superseding provisions and sections 44(2) and 44(3) should be so construed. ‘ This interpretation was permissible since it imposed no additional burden or relief on the defendants.

Judges:

May LJ, Forbes J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1763 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 291, [2006] 4 All ER 1342

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 6(1), Interpretation Act 1978 4, Identity Cards Act 2006 44(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu Admn 26-Nov-2008
The CPS appealed aganst a decision on a charge under the railway byelaws, that the charge be dismissed, the prosecution not having formally proved in accordance with any applicable statutory provision. The byelaws had in fact been properly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243314

Malik v Central Criminal Court and Another: Admn 27 Jun 2006

Application for judicial review of refusal to hear bail application in public. The bail application before the magistrates had been held in public, but not that to the crown court, as was normal practice. The issue on such an application is not the merits of the refusal of bail, but the process by which the application for bail has been dealt with.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Gray Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1539 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2455

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 58(1)(b)

Cited by:

Cited – S v Northampton Crown Court and Another Admn 7-May-2010
S faced serious charges of defrauding Customs and Excise. After allegations of jury tampering came to light, a decision was made for trial by judge alone, and his bail was revoked. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of bail. He challenged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242880

Simmons and Another v Regina: PC 3 Apr 2006

(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no case to answer even without the confessions, and ‘even had the Mushtaq direction been given and the jury disregarded the statement, they must inevitably still have convicted him. ‘. The statement though in effect culpatory had been intended to be exculpatory.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Woolf, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Whiteman PC 17-Apr-1991
(Trinidad and Tobago) The time at which an arrested or detained person is to be informed of his/her right to consult with a legal adviser of choice is at a stage before the commencement of ‘in-custody interrogations’.
Lord Keith, in delivering . .
Cited – Mohammed (Allie) v The State PC 9-Dec-1998
(Trinidad and Tobago) A failure to inform a suspect before interview of his right to see a lawyer did not make the interview inadmissible despite the constitutional infringement. It was not as serious as a failure to give fair trial. The judge’s . .
Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
Cited – Gilbert v Regina PC 27-Mar-2006
(Grenada) . .
Cited – Bowe (Junior) and Another v The Queen PC 8-Mar-2006
(Bahamas) The Board considered: ‘(a) the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (b) the constitutional history in the Bahamas as it differs from that of other Caribbean states and (c) the constitutionality of the executive act of carrying out a . .
Cited – Teeluck and John v The State PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases . .
Cited – Bowe v The State PC 30-Jan-2006
Constitutional validity of the death sentence in the Bahamas. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.240023

Ahmed v Regina: CACD 20 Jan 2015

Appeal against findings of fact as to commission of offences of sexual assault in a minor – defendant unfit to plead.
Held: Further evidence of no assistance.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Openshaw, Dove JJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Crim 2647

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Health, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.541564

Josephs, Regina v: CACD 17 Dec 2009

The court was asked whether the absence of a signature of the officer of the Crown Court on the form of indictment on which the appellant was eventually tried is fatal under the principle explained in R v Clarke and McDaid [2008] 2 Cr App R 2 at 18, [2008] UKHL 8.

Judges:

Hughes LJ VP, Rafferty DBE, Hedley JJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 2800

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.396430

Regina 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 anonymity ruling did not prevent proper investigation with the witnesses in open court of the essential elements of the defence. The court possesses an inherent jurisdiction at common law to control its own proceedings, if necessary by adapting and developing its existing processes ‘to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process’. Arrangements had been made for their anonymisation, but the court had to find a balance with the defendants’ rights to a fair trial. The admission of the evidence had not produced trials which were unfair. The significant test, as established in ECHR jurisprudence, was the opportunity to test the evidence by examination: ‘we can detect no conflict between the decisions of the European Court and the observations of the House of Lords on the issue of witness anonymity. In our judgment the discretion to permit evidence to be given by witnesses whose identity may not be known to the defendant is now beyond question. The potential disadvantages to the defendant require the court to examine the application for witness anonymity with scrupulous care, to ensure that it is necessary and that the witness is indeed in genuine and justified fear of serious consequences if his true identity became known to the defendant or the defendant’s associates. It is in any event elementary that the court should be alert to potential or actual disadvantages faced by the defendant in consequence of any anonymity ruling, and ensure that necessary and appropriate precautions are taken to ensure that the trial itself will be fair. Provided that appropriate safeguards are applied, and the judge is satisfied that a fair trial can take place, it may proceed. If not, he should not permit anonymity. If he does so, and there is a conviction, it is not to be regarded as unsafe simply because the evidence of anonymous witnesses may have been decisive. ‘

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge President, Mitting J, Fulford J

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 1155, [2006] 1 WLR 3130, [2007] Crim LR 70, [2006] 4 All ER 648, [2006] 2 Cr App R 32

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, European Convention on Human Rights 6(30(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v X, Y and Z; Regina v DJX, SCY and GCZ CACD 1989
The court upheld the decision of the Common Sergeant, sitting at the Central Criminal Court, that screens should be erected to enable children who had been treated indecently to give evidence screened from the defendant. The judge was required to . .
Cited – Connelly 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 – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Cited – Scott and another v Regina, Barnes and others v Regina PC 1989
(Jamaica) The defendants appealed the dismissal of their appeals against convictions for capital murder. In Scott, a special constable was shot with his own revolver in a bar, and subsequently died of his wounds. The only evidence identifying Scott . .
Cited – Regina v Dragic CACD 7-Mar-1996
Written evidence of a severely and chronically ill witness who was unable to attend and give oral evidence was rightly admitted. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The fact that there is no ability to cross-examine, that the witness who is absent is the only . .
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v Regina CACD 3-Nov-2005
The defendant had been tried for indecent assaults. The complainant having died before the trial, the judge had ruled that her written statements were admissible. The defendant said he had not had a fair trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Cited – Kostovski v The Netherlands ECHR 20-Nov-1989
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial
K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled . .
Cited – Windisch v Austria ECHR 27-Sep-1990
cs W was convicted of burglary on the evidence of a mother and daughter, who gave statements without their identity being revealed.
Held: The court recited various principles in the following terms:- ‘All . .
Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Cited – Luca v Italy ECHR 27-Feb-2001
The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses.
Held: Saunders had established the . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited – Ludi v Switzerland ECHR 15-Jun-1992
The claimant challenged his conviction of a drug trafficking offence. The evidence against him consisted mainly of a report by an anonymous undercover agent and transcripts of telephone intercepts of calls between the agent and the applicant. . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Doorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Taylor and Crabb CACD 22-Jul-1994
The defendants had stood trial at the Central Criminal Court for murder. At the trial a witness anonymised as Miss A was allowed to give evidence anonymously, without revealing her address, behind a screen so arranged that she, the judge, jury and . .
Cited – Van Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Apr-1997
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The . .
Cited – Birutis And Others v Lithuania ECHR 28-Mar-2002
The court considered the conviction of the applicant on the basis of anonymous statements which were not tested by examination at trial.
Held: The Court criticised the means adopted by the authorities ‘in handling the anonymous evidence’. . .
Cited – Visser v The Netherlands ECHR 14-Feb-2002
The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were . .
Cited – PS v Germany ECHR 20-Dec-2001
The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child’s mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly . .
Cited – Regina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA 10-Mar-1993
Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
Cited – Regina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .
Cited – Regina v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) (Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999) HL 19-Dec-2000
The provisions of the Code of Practice regarding identification parades are mandatory and additional unwritten conditions are not to be inserted. Where there was an identification and the suspect challenged that identification, and consented to the . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Regina v G and Another (PII: Counsel’s duty) CACD 27-May-2004
During the course of the trial, the prosecutor had inadvertently disclosed to the defence legal team material which had been subject to a public interest immunity certificate. The judge made an order under the 1987 Act that the defence team must not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina 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, . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241773

Director of Public Prosecutions v Meakin: Admn 4 May 2006

Appeal against stay of prosecution as abuse of process.
Held: The appeal failed. Openshaw J said: ‘The concept of a fair trial involves fairness to the prosecution and to the public as well as to the defendant.’

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1067 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gleeson CACD 16-Oct-2003
At the close of the prosecution case, the defendant’s counsel submitted that, following Nock, there was no case to answer. The prosecution sought to amend the indictment by adding an allegation of a statutory conspiracy, and to re-open the case, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241744

Card, Regina v: CACD 11 May 2006

The defendant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, saying that details of his previous convictions should not have been admitted under the 2003 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Where there was a risk of evidence of previous complaint being contaminated through collusion, the court should make that assessment first before then considering whether to admit it.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P, Mackay, Gross JJ

Citations:

Times 24-May-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 1079, [2006] 1 WLR 2994

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(d) 107

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hanson; Regina v Gilmore; Regina v Pickstone CACD 22-Mar-2005
In each case complaint was made about the way in which the judge had dealt with applications by the Crown to bring in the defendant’s bad character as evidence of his propensity to commit the crime.
Held: The court set out the applicable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241659

Hussain v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Mar 2006

The claimant had been acquitted in a criminal trial. He applied for a defendant’s costs order. He had faced a charge of interfering with witnesses, and in the case against him, a witness did not appear. The court refused the costs, commenting that ‘There is clear evidence on the court papers. The Crown have taken the view that they are not going to compel this witness although there is compelling evidence in respect of those matters.’
Held: The defendant having been acquitted, the judge’s comments and refusal of costs were incompatible with the presumption of innocence.

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2006, 8866/04, [2006] ECHR 206

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241286

Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v Whiteman: PC 17 Apr 1991

(Trinidad and Tobago) The time at which an arrested or detained person is to be informed of his/her right to consult with a legal adviser of choice is at a stage before the commencement of ‘in-custody interrogations’.
Lord Keith, in delivering the opinion of the Judicial Committee said:
‘Their Lordships accordingly consider that persons who have been arrested or detained have a constitutional right to be informed of their right to communicate with a legal adviser both upon a proper construction of section 5(2)( h ) of the Constitution of 1976 and on the basis of a settled practice existing when that Constitution was introduced. Davis JA said towards the end of his judgment of the Court of Appeal:
‘I am not prepared to lay down any general rule as to the precise point in time when a person in custody ought to be informed of this right, [but it should be] as early as possible, and in any event before any ‘in-custody interrogation’ takes place.’
Their Lordships would endorse that. It is possible to envisage circumstances where it would not be practicable to inform the person of his right immediately upon his arrest. They would add that it is incumbent upon police officers to see that the arrested person is informed of his right in such a way that he understands it. He may be illiterate, deaf, or unfamiliar with the language. It is plain that the mere exhibition of notices in the police station is insufficient in itself to convey the necessary information.’

Judges:

Keith of Kinkel, Templeman, Griffiths, Ackner, Jauncey of Tullichettle LL

Citations:

[1991] 2 AC 240, [1991] UKPC 16, (1991) 39 WIR 397

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Simmons and Another v Regina PC 3-Apr-2006
(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241302

Regina v Dotto: 4 Apr 2001

(Supreme Court of Gibraltar) A successful defendant in criminal proceedings is not entitled to any award of costs against the prosecution.

Citations:

CC No 21 of 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar v Shimidzu (Berllaque, Intervenor) PC 28-Jun-2005
(Gibraltar) The appellants sought to argue that the failure to allow an acquitted defendant any possible order for costs was a breach of the Constitution.
Held: Section 8 of the Constitution, like its analogue article 6 of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.228424

Regina v Townsend and Others: CACD 8 May 1997

Where a defendant has been induced to believe that he will not be prosecuted, this is capable of founding a stay for abuse; where he then co-operates with the prosecution in a manner which results in manifest prejudice to him, it will become inherently unfair to proceed against him. A breach of a promise not to prosecute does not inevitably give rise to abuse but may do so if it has led to a change of circumstances.

Judges:

Rose LJ V-P, Keene, Hyam JJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 1118, [1997] 2 Cr App R 540

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.150573

Regina v Jackson, Brady, Packer, Powell, and Kearns: CACD 13 May 1997

The defendants had been charged in a 17 count indictment. Further indictments were properly added, and then yet further indictments. The judge had directed these last to be signed but they had not been. The defendants said that they were therefore defective.
Held: The appeals failed. The Court could not distinguish Morais because it had involved a voluntary bill, but found two further and crucial distinctions. However the new counts had been included in the properly signed earlier indictments and had been checked by the proper officer. Also the judge had exercised the discretion granted to him by the proviso to section 2(1) of the 1933 Act to direct the proper officer in open court to sign indictments 4 and 5 and she had been obliged to do so, lacking (as a result of the direction) any independent jurisdiction of her own. The court declined to accept that the lawful direction of the trial judge could be frustrated and rendered valueless because the proper officer, for whatever reason, failed to follow his direction.

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1997, Gazette 18-Jun-1997, [1997] Crim LR 755, (1997) 161 JP 815, (1997) 161 JPN 770, [1997] EWCA Crim 1170, [1997] 2 Cr App R 497

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.150625

Regina v Thornton: CACD 2 Jun 1994

A judge is to give the jury a full Turnbull warning on identification evidence if identity is disputed. The defendant was at the scene, but denied his involvement.

Citations:

Ind Summary 04-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 22-Aug-1994, Times 02-Jun-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.88185

Regina v Smith (Joe): CACD 20 Dec 2000

The defendant was arrested for burglary and a non-intimate sample taken without his consent. The DNA profile matched blood at the scene of the burglary, and this match was the bedrock of the prosecution case. Before the trial, prosecuting counsel applied ex parte to withhold disclosure of certain material. The defence were notified of the application but not of the category into which the material was said to fall. The judge ruled that the material should not be disclosed and the defence were so informed. The defence then submitted to the judge that the DNA evidence derived from the non-intimate sample should be excluded under section 78 on the ground that the police had had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the defendant of committing the burglary, and had not therefore been entitled to arrest him or take the sample. There was no evidence before the jury to show that the police had had reasonable cause to suspect the defendant of the burglary but the judge relied on the PII information to rule that the police had had reasonable grounds for suspicion and declined to exclude the DNA evidence.
Held: There is nothing in human rights law, or in common law jurisdiction to say that the use of material not disclosed to the defence in an ex parte application for a public interest immunity certificate, was a breach of the defendant’s article 6 right which guaranteed a fair trial. Here, the defendant’s arrest was challenged as unlawful. The police sought to justify the arrest on the basis that they had reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the offence, but they sought permission not disclose the basis of that reasonable suspicion, and there is no provision to allow a hearing with special counsel appointed to represent the defendant’s interest in such a situation, although this might be considered in future.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000, [2001] 2 Cr App R 1, [2001] 1 WLR 1031

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Dearman, Southgate CACD 8-Oct-2001
The appellants had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. They appealed against conviction on the basis that the police and subsequently the prosecution involved lies or deceit intended to protect the identity of undercover detectives . .
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court QBD 21-Jun-2001
It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district . .
Not good law – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.88670

Regina v Greene: CACD 8 Apr 1997

The crucial event was the change of plea to guilty. If a defendant submits that admitted facts do not in law amount to the offence charged and the trial judge rules otherwise, then it is not difficult to see how an appeal against conviction can lie after a plea of guilty. In those circumstances there remains no issue of fact for the jury to try. But where the admissibility of a confession is in issue and the trial judge rules that it should be admitted, as he did in this case, the truth of the contents of the confession, although having no relevance in the voir dire, remains a matter to be tried by the jury. A plea of guilty in those circumstances serves as an admission of the truth of the contents of the confession [in so far as they are necessary to establish guilt of the offence charged]. It is not a plea entered where there is no remaining issue to be tried by the jury because it remains open to the defence to invite the jury not to rely on the truth of the confession despite the fact that, contrary to submissions, the trial judge ruled that it was admissible. In appeals against conviction following a plea of guilty, the somewhat mechanical test of whether a change of plea to guilty was ‘founded upon’ a particular feature of the trial, namely a wrong direction of law or material irregularity, gives way to the more direct question whether, given the circumstances prompting the change of plea to guilty, the conviction is unsafe. . . a conviction would be unsafe where the effect of an incorrect ruling of law on admitted facts was to leave an accused with no legal escape from a verdict on those facts. But a conviction would not normally be unsafe where an accused is influenced to change his plea to guilty because he recognises that, as a result of a ruling to admit strong evidence against him, his case on the facts is hopeless. A change of plea to guilty in such circumstances would normally be regarded as an acknowledgement of the truth of the facts constituting the offence charged.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Stuart White and Mr Justice Astill

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 839, [1997] Crim LR 659

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Hewitson, Bramich, Vincent CACD 24-Sep-1998
The defendants appealed their conviction after admission of evidence taken from secret tape recordings taken from a recording device hidden in the garage of one of the defendants.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted. It was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.150294

Regina v Hobson: CACD 25 Jun 1997

The defendant was given a retrial. There had been developments after her conviction of the understanding of battered woman’s syndrome which might have given a defence at trial.

Citations:

Times 25-Jun-1997, [1998] 1 Cr App R 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Challen, Regina v CACD 28-Feb-2019
Appeal from conviction for murder. The defendant had killed her husband with a hammer. She said that he had, through his controlling behaviour, abused her over many years.
Held: The verdict of manslaughter was substituted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.86872

Cleeland, Regina (on The Application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission: Admn 10 May 2019

Request for judicial review of a refusal of the defendant to refer the claimant’s conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Held: Refused.
‘ In future, we would expect the CCRC to be given an opportunity to make representations at an oral renewal hearing before permission is given to bring judicial review proceedings against it.’

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1175 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637778

Khan v Assets Recovery Agency: SCIT 23 Feb 2006

SCIT PROCEEDS OF CRIME – General Revenue function – Assessment to tax by Director – Whether Special Commissioners have the power to allow appeal on basis that qualifying conditions for exercise of Director’s Revenue functions are not satisfied – Yes – Whether article 6 ECHR applies to Director’s tax assessment – No – Whether retrospective effect of assessment affects its validity – No – What standard of proof is required in relation to satisfaction of qualifying condition requiring Director to establish reasonable grounds for suspicion that income has arisen as a result of criminal conduct – Whether Appellant’s rights under article 1 of First Protocol have been violated – No – Whether proceedings breached Appellant’s rights under article 7 – No – PoCA 2002 s.317(1) – TMA 1970 s.29 – Human Rights Act 1998 s.6 – ECHR arts 6 and 7 and art 1 of First Protocol.

Citations:

[2006] UKSPC SPC00523

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240286

Murchison v Southend Magistrates’ Court: Admn 24 Jan 2006

The defendant faced an accusation of having slapped a child in the street. The child’s carer had called the police to say that she thought the complaint a practical joke. The defendant did not give evidence. The magistrates retired and came back to convict him, but saying that they had seen his antecedents, which had been excluded from the evidence. The clerk gave evidence that she had only provided the conviction details after the magistrates had already confirmed after retirement that they had decided to convict.
Held: The fact that the magistrates did not know of the defendant’s record was established, and it was sufficient to distnguish this case from historical cases. The conviction stood, but it was clear that the practice had not been the best.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 569 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva HL 26-Jun-2003
The appellant challenged the withdrawal of her benefits payments. She had applied for asylum, and been granted reduced rate income support. A decision was made refusing her claim, but that decision was, by policy, not communicated to her for several . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham Magistrates Court ex parte Robinson 1986
. .
Cited – Regina v Coates; Regina v Graves; Regina v Terry CACD 30-Jul-2004
Each defendant had appealed. The appeals had been heard but the decisions not announced. One of the judges, Lord Justice Kay died.
Held: It was not open to the remaining judges to announce their decisions, whatever discussions had taken place . .
Cited – Regina v Downham Market Magistrates Court ex parte Nudd 1988
Where a magistrate becomes aware or might have become aware of an accused’s record before verdict, there had been a material irregularity and the conviction could not stand. Justice must be seen to be done, and any perception of improper bias must . .
Cited – Davies v Griffiths 1936
The proper procedure for justices is that Magistrates should announce the decision to convict before inquiring of the previous convictions and, that being so, the defendant or his counsel should have the further opportunity of addressing the Court. . .
Cited – Regina v East Kerrier Justices ex parte Mundy 1952
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240059

Taylor 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 substantial evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had been required to give clear directions on an allegation of joint enterprise murder, and spell out the possible inferences to be drawn from the statement and instruct them that they must rule out all inferences consistent with innocence before they could be satisfied that the inference of guilt has been proved correct. In this case the case for the Crown was itself contradictory and unclear and a source of confusion for the jury.

Judges:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Woolf, Lord Hutton, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .
Cited – Teeluck and John v The State PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases . .
Cited – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239588

Ebanks (Jurt) v The Queen: PC 16 Feb 2006

(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that identification evidence had been wrongly admitted and also if that appeal failed against the sentence of death. Though the witness knew the defendant, an identification parade was held.
Held: The parade had been held, and though the judge had incorrectly told the jury it had not been necessary, he had repeatedly told the jury of the need for caution in identification cases. It was said to be a capital murder because the victim was to be a witness in criminal proceedings. Though the direction had not been meticulous it was not defective. At the time this had been a capital offence, but the law had since been revised. In view of that change the defendant was to be remitted to the court of appeal for resentencing.

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-2006, [2006] UKPC 6

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Goldson and McGlashan v The Queen PC 23-Mar-2000
PC (Jamaica) The holding of an identification parade was desirable where the witness’s claim to have known and recognised the suspect is disputed. Lord Hoffmann referring to the defendant’s denial that he was the . .
Cited – Aurelio Pop v The Queen PC 22-May-2003
PC (Belize) A witness identified the accused only making the link between the man he knew as R and the accused as the result of an improper leading question by prosecuting counsel. There had been no . .
Cited – Regina v Harris CACD 2003
The trial judge had said to the jury that in cases of purported recognition by the witness of the accused as somebody known to him, an identification would, generally speaking, serve no useful purpose.
Held: He was in error and that the . .
Cited – Watson v Regina PC 7-Jul-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant was convicted of two murders from the same incident. The Act provided for the death penalty if he was convicted of a second murder. He appealed the death sentence in the circumstances, and said also that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238741

Shabadine Peart v The Queen: PC 14 Feb 2006

Jamaica – This appeal concerns the status of the Judges’ Rules, the requirements of rule III(b) and the way in which trial judges may exercise their discretion to admit evidence if there has been a breach of the Rules.

Judges:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Steyn, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance, Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 5, [2006] 1 WLR 970

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238745

Ruddy and others v Procurator Fiscal, Perth and Another; Robertson v Higson: PC 6 Feb 2006

(High Court of Justiciary Scotland)

Citations:

[2006] UKPC D2, 2006 SLT 478, 2006 SC (PC) 22, 2006 SCCR 151, [2006] HRLR 16, 20 BHRC 179

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Scotland Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – McInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
The defendant complained that the prosecution had not disclosed the fact that a prosecution witness had convictions, and that had it been disclosed it would have undermined the prosecution. Other statements taken were not disclosed as had later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238744

Regina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks: QBD 1985

The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality.’ and ‘The ultimate objective of this discretionary power is to ensure that there should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the defendant and the prosecution.’
‘The power to stop a prosecution arises only when it is an abuse of the process of the court. It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality, or (b) on the balance of probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable: for example, not due to the complexity of the inquiry and preparation of the prosecution case, or to the action of the defendant or his co-accused, or to genuine difficulty in effecting service. . The ultimate objective of this discretionary power is to ensure that there should be a fair trial according to law, which involves fairness both to the defendant and the prosecution’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ, Sir Roger Ormrod

Citations:

[1985] 80 Cr App R 164

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan CACD 1991
The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to . .
Cited – Regina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Cited – Re Molloy’s Application CANI 1998
. .
Cited – Taylor v Regina CACD 20-Dec-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction, for sex offences some 33 years earlier, saying that the convictions had been unfairly obtained. Evidence had been available since 1980, but a decision not to prosecute had been taken.
Held: ‘the . .
Applied – Regina v Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court and Day ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1989
The defendant had been in custody for a different offence on the day when the magistrates were due to try him, and he was not produced. The prosecutor only learned of the other conviction on that day, and sought an adjournment. Instead the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.194829

Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica: PC 1985

The appellant had been sentenced to life for firearms offences. After a successfully appeal, a retrial was ordered. More than two years had passed, after a previous attempt failed for absent witnesses.
Held: Referred to the US decision in Barker and Wingo (1972) 407 US 514, invoking the sixth amendment – ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….’) which identified four factors in assessing whether a defendant had been deprived of his constitutional rights: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons given by the prosecution to justify the delay; (3) the responsibility of the accused for asserting his rights; and (4) prejudice to the accused. ‘Their Lordships acknowledge the relevance and importance of the four factors lucidly expanded and comprehensively discussed in Barker v Wingo. Their Lordships also acknowledge the desirability of applying the same or similar criteria to any constitution, written or unwritten, which protects an accused from oppression by delay in criminal proceedings. The weight to be attached to each factor must, however, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case.’ and ‘It was argued on behalf of the respondents, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General, that the applicant was able to obtain redress by waiting until his retrial, ordered for 11 May 1982, and then submitting to the Gun Court at the commencement of the retrial that the proceeding should be dismissed on the grounds that in the events which had happened a retrial would be an abuse of the process of the court. Their Lordships cannot accept this submission. If the constitutional rights of the applicant had been infringed by failing to try him within a reasonable time, he should not be obliged to prepare for a retrial which must necessarily be convened to take place after an unreasonable time.’
‘Their Lordships accept the submission of the respondents that, in giving effect to the rights granted by sections 13 and 20 of the Constitution of Jamaica, the courts of Jamaica must balance the fundamental right of the individual to a fair trial within a reasonable time against the public interest in the attainment of justice in the context of the prevailing system of legal administration and the prevailing economic, social and cultural conditions to be found in Jamaica. The administration of justice in Jamaica is faced with a problem, not unknown in other countries, of disparity between the demand for legal services and the supply of legal services. Delays are inevitable. The solution is not necessarily to be found in an increase in the supply of legal services by the appointment of additional judges, the creation of new courts and the qualification of additional lawyers. Expansion of legal services necessarily depends on the financial resources available for that purpose. Moreover an injudicious attempt to expand an existing system of courts, judges and practitioners, could lead to deterioration in the quality of the justice administered and to the conviction of the innocent and the acquittal of the guilty. The task of considering these problems falls on the legislature of Jamaica, mindful of the provisions of the Constitution and mindful of the advice tendered from time to time by the judiciary, the prosecution service and the legal profession of Jamaica. The task of deciding whether and what periods of delay explicable by the burdens imposed on the courts by the weight of criminal causes suffice to contravene the rights of a particular accused to a fair hearing within a reasonable time falls upon the courts of Jamaica and in particular on the members of the Court of Appeal who have extensive knowledge and experience of conditions in Jamaica. In the present case the Full Court stated that a delay of two years in the Gun Court is a current average period of delay in cases in which there are no problems for witnesses. The Court of Appeal did not demur. Their Lordships accept the accuracy of the statement and the conclusion, implicit in the statement, that in present circumstances in Jamaica, such delay does not by itself infringe the rights of an accused to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. No doubt the courts and the prosecution authorities recognise the need to take all reasonable steps to reduce the period of delay wherever possible.’

Judges:

Templeman L

Citations:

[1985] 2 All ER 585, [1985] AC 937

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Chichester Justices ex parte Crowther Admn 14-Oct-1998
The defendant sought judicial review of an order made in 1998 issuing a warrant for his committal for failure to pay a confiscation order made in 1991. He had served 6 years imprisonment, and in default of payment a further 18 months. He was . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.187181

Day v Grant (Note): CA 1985

(January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular order under appeal, but to the underlying proceedings in which that order was made, and those are the proceeding which have to be characterised as either criminal or non-criminal.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, Kerr and Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[1987] QB 972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 30-Jan-2004
The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Crown Court at Bradford CA 19-Dec-2003
A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder.
Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.193380

Chapman, Regina v: CACD 29 Jul 2013

Renewed application for leave to appeal from sentence and in particular a confiscation order, saying that the judge had failed to allow for adjustments she said should be made as to her assets.

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, Sweeney J, Judge Rook QC

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 1370, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 683, [2013] WLR(D) 318, [2014] 1 WLR 1376, [2014] Crim LR 611

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.513723

Horden, Regina v: CACD 20 Feb 2009

The appellant challenged the need for him to have been handcuffed whilst in the dock and when giving evidence.

Judges:

Hughes lJ VP

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 388, (2009) 173 JP 254, [2009] Crim LR 588, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.324715

Irwin Mitchell (a Firm) v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and Another: CACD 30 Jul 2008

The solicitors had held andpound;5,000 on account of their fees for representing the defendant when he later became subject to a criminal restraint order. They wrote to the respondents saying that they intended to transfer the fees to satisfy their interim account. The respondents refused. The judge had refused to vary the order.
Held: The Revenue had accepted that they would not become entitled to the funds, but still refused to allow its transfer. No contempt of the restraint order would be created by the transfer of the funds. No variation of the order was required to allow the solicitors in this case to transfer the funds.

Judges:

Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Jack and Judge Mettyear

Citations:

Times 27-Aug-2008

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.279811

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy: Admn 19 Jan 2006

Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the prosecution, and subject to disclosure requirements accordingly. The prosecution replied that the meter manufacturer specifications were protected as confidential.
Held: The prosecutions were not an abuse. The prosecution itself had attempted to obtain the information, but failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 32 (Admin), Times 08-Feb-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a), Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 83 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD 1992
The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Regina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Regina 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 – Regina v Tibbs CACD 28-Feb-2000
The meaning of a defence as included in a defence statement refers to a defence in its general sense. Where the facts supporting a defence statement differed when the matter came to trial it was correct for the defendant to be cross-examined about . .
Cited – Regina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .
Cited – Regina v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex parte Cardy 1985
Representations that the Intoximeter or other device used for measuring breath alcohol, should not have been approved or that the Secretary of State should have withdrawn approval in respect of the device should be addressed to the Secretary of . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Memery QBD 4-Jul-2002
The Crown Court had concluded that the intoximeter EC/IR was not a validly approved device or if it was that it was unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have approved it since it was a device which detected mouth alcohol, i.e. was liable to . .
Cited – Boddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira QBD 16-Nov-2001
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Regina v Feltham Magistrate’s Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Feb-2001
The court considered how cases should be handled where video evidence of relevance to a defendant’s case had been destroyed, and the defendant asserted abuse of process.
Held: The discretion to stay proceedings should be employed only in . .
Cited – Regina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad HL 23-Jan-1996
The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process.
Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cunliffe, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Jul-2006
The claimant was an employee of the company manufacturing alcohol measuring devices. He sought judicial review of decisions by magistrates to require him to attend court to give evidence which would require him to breach obligations of confidence he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237845

Bakewell, Regina v: CACD 11 Jan 2006

The defendant faced allegations of evading duty on the importing of substantial quantities of cigarettes. A confiscation order was made. HMRC appealed saying it was too small a sum.
Held: ‘the liability of a smuggler who evades duty which he becomes liable to pay on importation is a pecuniary advantage obtained rendering him liable to a confiscation order in the amount of the duty evaded irrespective of whatever the fate of the contraband may be and indeed whatever the smuggler’s role would have been in dealing with or profiting from that contraband.’ The valuation suggested by CR was correct, and the benefit at issue was the benefit of the entire benefit obtained eve if the defendants benefit was much more restrcited.

Judges:

Rix LJ, Bell J, Sir John Alliott

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6(2), Customs and Excise Act 1979 170(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Smith (David Cadnam) HL 13-Dec-2001
Smith had bought a motor vessel, The Vertine, with andpound;55,000 provided by his co-defendant, John Marriott. In the words of the judge when imposing sentence, the respondent allowed himself to be used as Marriott’s ship owner and captain. The . .
Applied – Regina v Ellingham CACD 2-Dec-2004
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to smuggling cigarettes on the basis that he was neither the organiser of the importation, nor the financier, nor the end user. His only reward was the promise of a payment of pounds 10,000, of which he had . .
Cited – Regina v Banks CACD 9-Dec-1996
Valuation of drugs in confiscation order.
Applying the 1994 Act, sections 2(3) and 4(1) were directed to gross payments and not net profits. . .
Cited – Regina v Lunnon CACD 2004
The defendant admitted conspiring to supply cannabis on the basis that he had derived no financial benefit from his involvement in the conspiracy, although he had been promised andpound;200 for his role in transporting a sum of money for the . .
Cited – Regina v Lazarus CACD 2004
The defendant had admitted supplying cocaine and possession. In searches of his home, police found drugs and andpound;13,880 cash on one occasion and andpound;600 on another. His basis of plea, however, was that he had allowed his home to be used . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237565