Category: Criminal Practice

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 23 Feb 2001

An order made by a judge that the prosecution pay the defence’s costs, which had been unnecessarily incurred after a failure properly to disclose evidence to them, was an order made as part of the Crown Court trial, and so was not susceptible to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88533

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Bone: QBD 8 Nov 1994

A Crown Court Judge when remanding a defendant in custody after a prosecution appeal from the Justices must give a date on which he is to be produced. Rose LJ said: ‘For my part, I accept that the Crown Court Judge is not subject to the provisions of sections 128 and 129 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. However, the detention of the Applicant, and the lawfulness or otherwise of that detention has to be gauged, as it seems to me, by reference to the provisions of the Magistrates’ Court Act because in this case the Applicant was subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates.’ and ‘For my part, I would have thought that the most convenient and sensible course would be, if this difficulty arises in the future, for a Crown Court to be invited by the prosecution to stipulate a date which does in fact comply with the provisions of the Magistrates’ Court Act, not because the Crown Court Judge is himself subject to the jurisdiction of that Act, but because of the lacuna in the statute which leads to the problems which are otherwise encountered.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Bail (Amendment) Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Remice v HMP Belmarsh Admn 27-Mar-2007
The prisoner was accused of witness intimidation. He was arrested and several bail applications and appeals were heard, but the last simply committed him to prison. He said that since this order would return him to the magistrates, a maximum of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88480

Regina v Guildford Crown Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles: QBD 29 Oct 1996

The claimant objected to the use by the respondent of orders under the 1988 Act to produce records for investigation and tracing proceeds.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘In my judgment, therefore, it would be wrong to construe the words in section 93H(1) ‘an investigation into whether any person has benefited from any criminal conduct’ for all the world as if they were synonymous with ‘an investigation into whether any conduct from which a person has benefitted was criminal, effectively the construction for which [counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions] contends.’
. . and ‘the question to be asked is this: What is the dominant purpose of the application? Is it for criminal investigation purposes – to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if so, to provide evidence of that offence – or is it to determine, in respect of criminal offending – although not necessarily a specific offence which the prosecution already has reasonable grounds for believing (rather than merely suspecting) has been committed – whether, and, if so, to what extent, someone has benefitted from it, or the whereabouts of the proceeds.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Oct-1996, [1998] QB 243

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Criminal Justice Act 1988 93H

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 7-Apr-1998
An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of . .
Cited – Pearce and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 18-Jul-2013
The appellants challenged rejection of their complaints that actions of police officers searching their ‘squats’ when executing search warrants, were unlawful in that they had been intended not as descrbed for the search for stolen goods, but rather . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88487

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: HL 31 Oct 2007

The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of liberty as to be unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. When looking at the lawfulness of an order, the court was to look at the effect of the order on the subject. The appellant had shown no error in law in the approach taken either by the court at first instance or on appeal. In practice the order imposed indefinite solitary confinement on the subject and exceeded his power to make them. It was not open to the court to quash individual elements of the order. Deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest.

Judges:

Bingham L, Hoffmann L (dissenting), Hale L, Carswell L (dissenting), Brown L

Citations:

[2007] UKHL 45, Times 05-Nov-2007, [2007] 3 WLR 642, [2008] 1 All ER 613, [2008] 1 AC 385, [2008] HRLR 5, [2008] UKHRR 80, [2008] Crim LR 489

Links:

Bailii, HL

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others Admn 28-Jun-2006
The claimants challenged the terms of restrictions placed upon them under the Act. . .
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others CA 1-Aug-2006
The applicants had challenged non-derogating control orders restricting his liberty on the basis that he was suspected of terrorist intentions. The Home Secretary appealed an order finding the restrictions to be unlawful.
Held: The Home . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH Admn 9-May-2008
The claimant, an Iraqi national, had been about to be deported when he was re-arrested for Terrorism offences for which he was acquitted. He was then made subject to a non-derogating control order. He now challenged the renewal of that order, even . .
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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN Admn 31-Jul-2009
The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Cited – Dolan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another CA 1-Dec-2020
Lockdown Measures not Ultra Vires the 1984 Act
The appellants, a businessman, and mother, appealed from refusal of leave to challenge regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020 and since which introduced what was commonly known as a ‘lockdown’ in England. They . .
Cited – Dolan and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another Admn 6-Jul-2020
Challenge to closures of schools and other provisions taken under the Regulations.
Held: The Secretary of State had the legal power to make the Regulations. In making and maintaining the Regulations, he had not fettered his discretion. He had . .
Cited – Jalloh, Regina (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department SC 12-Feb-2020
Claim for damages for false imprisonment brought in judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of a curfew imposed upon the claimant, purportedly under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.
Held: The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.260313

Cantabrica Coach Holdings Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division): HL 22 Nov 2001

A transport examiner investigating compliance with the drivers hours regulations was allowed to remove records from an office for examination, and a company refusing him to be allowed to do that committed an offence. Where removal was necessary, whether because of the number of documents or the absence of adequate copying facilities, an examiner must be allowed to remove papers. The provision allowing the inspector to give ten days notice did not exclude the possibility of allowing less notice.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Times 28-Nov-2001, Gazette 24-Jan-2002, [2001] UKHL 60, [2002] RTR 8, [2001] 1 WLR 2288, [2002] 1 All ER 595, (2002) 166 JPN 550, (2002) 166 JP 423

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1968 99 (1)(bb), Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979 (SI 1979 No 1746), Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No 1457)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Cantabrica Coach Holdings Ltd v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 31-Mar-2000
Even though no underlying offence was suspected, the owner of tachograph records was required to hand them over to the inspector for inspection off the premises if necessary. An offer to allow inspection, but only at the record keeper’s offices was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166875

Regina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners: Admn 18 Oct 2001

The function of the Director’s office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act could not be re-interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act to protect a right of life. There is a direct conflict between the right of life, and the right to protect a body. The Convention protects life and the dignity of life, but does not protect any right to procure one’s own death or confer a right to die. The right to the dignity of life was not a right to die with dignity, but rather a right to live, with as much dignity as could possibly be afforded, until that life reached its natural end.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey, Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice Silber

Citations:

Times 23-Oct-2001, Gazette 22-Nov-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 788

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Suicide Act 1961 2(1) 2(4)

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip PC 9-Nov-1994
A pardon which had been give to insurrectionists was invalid, since it purported to excuse future conduct also, but there had been no duress shown. There is no general power to excuse a crime before it is committed. Lord Woolf: ‘A pardon must in the . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn CA 1968
Answerability of Chief Constables
The constitutional status of the Commissioner had never been defined, either by statute or by the courts. By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law. The court considered the extent to which a court . .
Cited – C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 17-Mar-1995
The House considered whether the long established rule of the criminal law presuming that a child did not have a guilty mind should be set aside.
Held: Doli incapax, the presumption of a child’s lack of mens rea, is still effective and good . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Nov-2001
The applicant was terminally ill, and entirely dependent upon her husband for care. She foresaw a time when she would wish to take her own life, but would not be able to do so without the active assistance of her husband. She sought a proleptic . .
Cited – Rusbridger and Another v Attorney General CA 20-Mar-2002
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166631

Jones, Regina v: CACD 3 Jul 2015

Appeal against conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Allegation where wife was victim, but she had declined to give evidence, and not attended. The Court’s attention was not drawn to section 116 of the 2006 Act, and the evidence admitted without explanation as to how it had been applied.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘There are many practical measures that could have been adopted in our view to ensure, first of all, that this complainant was located in a timely fashion, that her attendance at court was ensured, to protect her welfare and the welfare of her children and, importantly, to ensure the rights of this appellant, however fanciful his defence, to cross-examine the complainant on the matters that she alleged against him. The fact that to embark upon those measures would have meant a delay in the commencement of the trial or would otherwise have imposed upon the police officers concerned the necessity to track down the complainant does not provide, in our opinion, a sufficient basis upon which the prosecution could legitimately have made this ‘hearsay’ application to the court.
We stress that there will be many cases of domestic violence where it may become inevitable and absolutely necessary for a court to ensure justice is done and to admit the statement of the complainant. In such cases it often will be the case that the complainant is the only witness, but this in itself is not a good reason necessarily to refuse such applications. What we do stress equally, however, is that if such an application is to be made, it should be properly based, it should be properly evidenced, and the court has a responsibility to properly investigate the matter. We regret that in this case that investigation does not appear to have taken place. We cannot be satisfied from the transcript of the ruling that the judge did take into account appropriately all matters concerning this complainant’s absence, nor take all necessary steps as would ensure her welfare and the fairness of the trial by obtaining her attendance.’

Judges:

Macur LJ, Walker J, Zeidman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 1317, (2016) 180 JP 132

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.553262

SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of a grave offence after being convicted for a first.

Citations:

(2001) 34 EHRR 619, [2001] ECHR 396, 39360/98, [2001] ECHR 400

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(3), Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166136

Atlan v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

It was an infringement of the defendant’s right to a fair trial for the trial judge not to be involved in ex parte applications to exclude evidence. The defect could not be remedied by the same evidence later being presented also to the appeal court on an ex parte basis. There is a general requirement to disclose to the defence all material in the possession of the prosecutor which might be relevant. Though it might be necessary to withhold some material in order to protect the rights of somebody else, but that could only be appropriate where strictly necessary. Here the prosecutor had repeatedly denied the existence of such material, and such behaviour must make for a denial of a fair trial.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-2001, 36533/97, (2001) 34 EHRR 833, [2001] ECHR 397

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami CACD 1-Nov-2001
In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing.
Held: The procedures were . .
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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166135

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 integral part of a fair trial played by the right of silence. The inability to cross examine a witness was in an infringement of his rights: ‘As the court has stated on a number of occasions . . it may prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage (in particular where the witness refuses to repeat his deposition in public owing to fears for his safety, a not infrequent occurrence in trials concerning Mafia-type organisations). If the defendant has been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the depositions, either when made or at a later stage, their admission in evidence will not in itself contravene Article 6.1 and 3(d). The corollary of that, however, is that where the conviction is both solely or to a decisive degree based on depositions that had been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6.’

Judges:

Palm, President, Thomassen, Jorundsson, Birsan, Casadevall, Zupancic, judges

Citations:

(2001) 36 EHRR 807, 33354/96, (2003) 36 EHRR 46, [2001] ECHR 124

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Cited – Unterpertinger v Austria ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm, mainly on the basis of statements which his wife and daughter had given to the police. His wife and daughter took advantage of their right not to give evidence at his trial and so could not . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v M (Witness Statement) CACD 20-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The principal witness’ statement had been allowed to be read to the jury after the witness had claimed to be afraid of giving evidence.
Held: There was no general principle which would operate . .
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 . .
Mentioned – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
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 – 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 . .
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 – Regina v Arnold CACD 21-May-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction after the non attendance of a witness.
Held: The court was prepared to assume that the witness had not been kept away by fear, but ruled that the statement was admissible. However: ‘We cannot leave this case . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
Cited – Adeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166044

Sander v The United Kingdom: ECHR 9 May 2000

In a trial of an Asian defendant a juror complained that other jurors had made racist jokes, and feared that the defendant would not receive a fair trial. The judge obtained re-assurance from the jury that they would not so act, but did so in a way in which the complainor was identified. The trial was defective. The defendant could not be expected to accept that he had had a fair trial. The acquittal of an Asian co-defendant made no difference since the case against him was different.
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected

Citations:

Times 12-May-2000, 34129/96, (2000) 8 BHRC 279, (2000) 31 EHRR 1003, [2000] ECHR 193, [2000] ECHR 194

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Distinguished – Regina v Qureshi CACD 23-Jul-2001
The appellant had been convicted of arson. A few days after the conviction, one juror reported concern about the behaviour of the jury.
Held: Authority was clear, that the court could not enter into an investigation of what had happened with . .
Distinguished – Regina v Smith (Lance Percival) CACD 19-Feb-2003
The defendant argued that the judge should have ensured that some members of the jury were black. He was a black man being tried by an all white jury, with a white victim and white witnesses.
Held: The judge had no part to play in the . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165869

Niedbala v Poland: ECHR 4 Jul 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award
A warrant must be validated by an independent judicial authority.

Citations:

[2000] ECHR 359, 27915/95, [2000] ECHR 360, [2000] 33 EHRR 1137

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(3)

Cited by:

Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165906

Frydlender v France: ECHR 27 Jun 2000

The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute. for Article 6.1, in its ‘civil’ limb, to be applicable there must be a dispute over a ‘right’ that can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law. The dispute must be genuine and serious. It may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise. Moreover, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the civil right in question

Citations:

30979/96, 43 ECHR 2000-VII, (2001) EHRR 52, [2000] ECHR 352, [2000] ECHR 353

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Cited by:

Cited – B R v Poland ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The claimant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had exceeded a reasonable time . .
Cited – Stockholms Forsakrings- Och Skadestandsjuridik Ab v Sweden ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
Cited – Umek v Slovenia ECHR 8-Jan-2009
The claimant said that the defendant country had failed to provide her with an effective remedy for delay in proceedings before its courts. She had sought damages after being involved in a fire. She began proceedings in 1989, and they were concluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165898

Labita v Italy: ECHR 6 Apr 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to conditions of transfer; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3; Violation of P4-2; Violation of P1-3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
Where the authorities detain a suspect for a lengthy period before trial, they must show special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings to justify continued detention. Article 3 prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and of the victim’s behaviour.

Citations:

26772/95, [2000] 119 ECHR 2000 IV, [2000] ECHR 160, [2000] ECHR 161

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Cited by:

Cited – Al Akidi v Bulgaria ECHR 31-Jul-2003
The applicant asserted infringement of his rights by virtue of his detention before trial. He was arrested and detained in 1993, but his case was not concluded until 1997, with appeals running through to 1997.
Held: Suspicion is a sine qua non . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165854

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 breached insofar as the prosecution had themselves sought to make that assessment without judicial involvement. Disclosure at a later stage on appeal was not a sufficient remedy, since the task of the appellate court was different. Nevertheless if the judge had been given some involvement, a necessary withholding could be proper. The court recognised that it was a ‘fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 6(1) requires, as indeed does English law, that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused’ but ‘the European Court’s task is to ascertain whether the decision-making procedure applied in each case complied, as far as possible, with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused’.

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-2000, 28901/95, (2000) 30 EHRR 441, (2000) 30 EHHR 1, (2000) 30 EHRR 480, [2000] ECHR 90

Links:

Bailii, Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1

Citing:

Conjoined Hearing – Fitt v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Conjoined Hearing – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami CACD 1-Nov-2001
In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing.
Held: The procedures were . .
Cited – Dowsett v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant had been convicted along with others of a murder. He now alleged that the police had refused to disclose evidence which would have supported his defence. Some had been disclosed but some still withheld on public interest grounds by the . .
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the . .
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 . .
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 – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Regina v Lewis CACD 6-Apr-2005
The defendant had been convicted under the 1981 Act. The European Court of Human Rights had found that police officers had infringed his human rights by their entrapment of him into offering them counterfeit currency. He now appealed his conviction. . .
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – Sinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Sargent HL 25-Oct-2001
When a telephone engineer used his position to make unauthorised telephone intercepts, and produced apparent evidence of criminal activity, he was, under the Act, a person engaged in providing a public communications system, and the recordings were . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Cited – Smith v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that the prosecution had failed to provide the roadside breath test figures.
Held: The appeal failed, and was indeed hopeless. Pill LJ said: ‘The specimens of . .
Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
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 . .
Conjoined Hearing – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .
Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165820

Bernard v France: ECHR 23 Apr 1998

The presumption of innocence is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial required by article 6(1). Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2

Citations:

[1998] ECHR 31, 22885/93, (1998) 30 EHRR 808

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165620

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 Court of Appeal referred the case to the investigating judge who arranged hearings in which he, a registrar and the anonymous witnesses were in one room, while the applicants, their lawyers and the Advocate General were in another room. The two rooms were connected by a sound link only. Held: There had been a breach of article 6(3)(d) since the defence were not only unaware of the identity of the police witnesses but were also prevented from observing their demeanour under direct questioning, and thus from testing their reliability. It had not been explained to the Court’s satisfaction why it was necessary to resort to such extreme limitations on the right of the accused to have the evidence against them given in their presence, or why less far-reaching measures were not considered. Any handicaps placed on the defence in criminal proceedings should be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures allowed by the judicial authorities, and ‘Having regard to the place that the right to a fair administration of justice holds in a democratic society, any measures restricting the rights of the defence should be strictly necessary. If a less restrictive measure can suffice then that measure should be applied’.
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d; Just satisfaction reserved; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings.

Citations:

(1997) 25 EHRR 647, [1997] ECHR 22, 2 BHRC 486, 21427/93, 21363/93

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Cited by:

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 – 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 – 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 – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – 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 . .
See Also – Van Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 30-Oct-1997
The defendant’s right to a fair trial had been infringed where anonymous police witnesses gave evidence against the defendant in circumstances such that, not only did the defendant know their identities, but he was unable to observe their demeanour . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
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 – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Cited – Regina v D(R) Misc 16-Sep-2013
Crown Court at Blackfriars – the court was asked to what extent a witness wanting, from religious conviction, to hide her face with the niqaab form of Islamic dress should be allowed to do so, whilst giving evidence.
Held: The court considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165495

Padovani v Italy: ECHR 26 Feb 1993

Hudoc The Court considered the compatibility with Article 6(1) of a magistrate’s dual function of investigation and judgment.
Held: The summary investigative measures carried out by the magistrate in the particular case did not give rise to an objectively justified fear that he lacked impartiality when acting thereafter as judge in the case.

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 12, 13396/87

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165242

Imbrioscia v Switzerland: ECHR 24 Nov 1993

The applicant had been questioned several times without access to a lawyer while he was in police custody.
Held: Overall there had been no breach of article 6(1). The right set out in article 6(3)(c) is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings in article 6(1). The way in which articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) were to be applied during the preliminary investigation depended on the special features of the proceedings and on the circumstances of the case.
Judge De Meyer (dissenting) said that the court had failed to recognise the rules governing the right to legal advice during custodial interrogation which the Supreme Court has summarised in its Miranda judgment and which he said belonged to the very essence of fair trial.

Judges:

Ryssdal, President, De Meyer J

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 56, 13972/88, (1994) 17 EHRR 441

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights 6(1) 6(3)(c)

Citing:

Cited – Miranda v Arizona 10-Oct-1966
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure . .

Cited by:

Cited – Zaichenko v Russia ECHR 18-Feb-2010
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of . .
Cited – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate.
Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165297

Saidi v France: ECHR 20 Sep 1993

S had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of drug addicts and in the situation where there was no opportunity to confront the witness.
Held: ‘The court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, and that it is in principle for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The court’s task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. All the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing, with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police enquiry and judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6(3)(d) and (1) provided that the right to the defence had been respected. As a rule these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witness against him either when he was making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings.’ However there had been a breach of Article 6 since the testimony constituted ‘the sole basis’ for the applicant’s conviction, and the lack of any confrontation had deprived the defendant in certain respects of ‘a fair trial’. The court recognised the difficulties of the fight against drug trafficking, but ‘such considerations cannot justify restricting to this extent the rights of the defence of everyone charged with a criminal offence.’

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 39, 14647/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 251

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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 . .
Illustrative – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165276

Zumtobel v Austria: ECHR 21 Sep 1993

The Zumtobel partnership objected to the compulsory purchase of their farming land to build the L52 by-pass road in the Austrian Vorarlberg. The appropriate Government committee heard their objections but confirmed the order. They appealed to an administrative court which said that the Government had taken proper matters into account and that it was not entitled to substitute its decision for that of the administrative authority. They complained to the Commission and the European court that, as the administrative court could not ‘independently assess the merits and the facts of the case’, it did not have ‘full jurisdiction’ within the meaning of the Albert and Le Compte formula.
Held: It is not always necessary to have a review of the merits of a policy decision for the procedure to be held to be fair. The court’s jurisdiction was sufficient in the circumstances of the case, ‘[r]egard being had to the respect which must be accorded to decisions taken by the administrative authorities on grounds of expediency and to the nature of the complaints made by the Zumtobel partnership’.

Citations:

12235/86, [1994] 17 EHRR 116, [1993] ECHR 41, [1993] ECHR 41

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Cited – Heald and Others v London Borough of Brent CA 20-Aug-2009
The court considered whether it was lawful for a local authority to outsource the decision making on homelessness reviews. The appellants said that it could not be contracted out, and that the agent employed lacked the necessary independence and was . .
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 – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Cited – Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Nov-2014
The claimant had supported the grant of a visa to a woman in order to speak to members of Parliament who was de facto leader of an Iranian organsation which had in the past supported terrorism and had been proscribed in the UK, but that proscription . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165274

Edwards v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1992

The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the defence. One of the police witnesses said that no fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, whereas in fact two fingerprints were found which later turned out to be those of the next door neighbour who was a regular visitor to the house.
Held: There was a prosecution failure to disclose relevant information, but no PII issue had been raised. The omission was held to have been rectified by the appeal process. Article 6.1 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.
‘it is a requirement of fairness under Article 1 . . that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused.’
Whether a failure of disclosure has resulted in a breach of article 6(1) has to be considered in the light of the proceedings as a whole, including the decisions of appellate courts.

Citations:

13071/87, Times 21-Jan-1991, (1993) 15 EHRR 417, [1992] ECHR 77

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 1 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Dowsett v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant had been convicted along with others of a murder. He now alleged that the police had refused to disclose evidence which would have supported his defence. Some had been disclosed but some still withheld on public interest grounds by 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 – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – Alistair Mcleod v Her Majesty’s Advocate (No 2) HCJ 19-Dec-1997
A full court applied the guidance in Edwards -v- United Kingdom when considering the duty of the Crown to make disclosure under Scots law: ‘Our system of criminal procedure therefore proceeds on the basis that the Crown have a duty at any time to . .
Cited – Sinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – Stretford v The Football Association Ltd and Another CA 21-Mar-2007
The claimant was a football player’s agent. The licensing scheme required disputes, including disciplinary procedures, to be referred to arbitration. He denied that the rule had been incorporated in the contract. He also complained that the . .
Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – Dodds v Regina CACD 31-May-2002
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements . .
Cited – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165234

Pfeifer And Plankl v Austria: ECHR 25 Feb 1992

Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from whether it was ‘impartial’ and held that it was not. The Court held that the two complaints coincided: the court was not established by law because of the disqualification which national law had imposed so as to remove all reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of trial courts. Hence there was a breach of Article 6(1) (and there had not been an effective waiver of the applicant’s rights). In order to be effective, a waiver must be made without undue compulsion, and the consent must be an informed one. Regard must be had to the character or nature of the right when a decision is made as to whether the person was given sufficient information about that right for him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should waive it.

Citations:

(1992) 14 EHRR 692, 10802/84, [1992] ECHR 2

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Fawdry and Co (A Firm) v Murfitt CA 14-May-2002
The judge at first instance who was ticketed to sit as a judge in the Technology and Construction Court, had been asked to sit as a judge of the High Court to take this case. The appellant said she was acting outside her powers.
Held: The . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – Stretford v The Football Association Ltd and Another CA 21-Mar-2007
The claimant was a football player’s agent. The licensing scheme required disputes, including disciplinary procedures, to be referred to arbitration. He denied that the rule had been incorporated in the contract. He also complained that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165154

Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain: ECHR 6 Dec 1988

ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused.

Citations:

10590/83, (1988) 11 EHRR 360, [1988] ECHR 25

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165022

Colozza v Italy: ECHR 12 Feb 1985

The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence.
Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: ‘the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is entitled to take part in the hearing. Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph (3) guarantee to ‘everyone charged with a criminal offence’ the right ‘to defend himself in person’, ‘to examine or have examined witnesses’ and ‘to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court’, and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present.’

Citations:

9024/80, [1987] 7 EHRR 516, [1985] ECHR 1, (1985) 7 EHRR 516

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Cited by:

Mentioned – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – Regina v In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Governor of HM Prison Brixton, ex parte Barone Admn 7-Nov-1997
The defendant had been convicted in his absence by a court in Turin and in respect of whom there was uncontradicted evidence before their lordships that if he were returned to that jurisdiction he would, under the relevant Italian procedures, be . .
Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164946

Weeks v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 Mar 1987

The applicant, aged 17, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment in the interests of public safety, being considered by the trial judge on appeal to be dangerous.
Held: ‘The court agrees with the Commission and the applicant that the clearly stated purpose for which [the] sentence was imposed, taken together with the particular facts pertaining to the offence for which he was convicted, places the sentence in a special category.’ In substance, Mr Weeks was being put at the disposal of the state because he needed continued supervision in custody for an unforeseeable length of time and, as a corollary, periodic reassessment in order to ascertain the most appropriate way of dealing with him, and added: ‘The grounds expressly relied on by the sentencing courts for ordering this form of deprivation of liberty against Mr Weeks are by their very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time, whereas the measure will remain in force for the whole of his life. In this, his sentence differs from a life sentence imposed on a person because of the gravity of the offence.’ The Parole Board for England and Wales has the necessary independence to constitute a ‘court’ for the purposes of Article 5(4). In considering whether the prisoner should be released, the Board will consider whether the prisoner remains a danger to the public. The freedom enjoyed by a discretionary life sentence prisoner on licence is ‘more circumscribed in law and more precarious than the freedom enjoyed by the ordinary citizen’ but is, nonetheless, a state of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the Convention.

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-1987, 9787/82, (1988) 10 EHRR 293, [2008] ECHR 18, [1987] ECHR 3

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5.4

Cited by:

Reserved from – Weeks v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-1988
The Court was asked as to the recall to prison of a prisoner who had been released on licence. His recall and subsequent detention were considered by the Board, but under the system then in place it could only make a non-binding recommendation. . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 9-Mar-1999
The appellant pleaded guilty to an assault with a knife upon a stranger. He had a previous conviction for assault causing severe injury and permanent disfigurement, and two previous convictions for inter alia attempted murder and assault. He had . .
Cited – Giles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Hirst v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2006
The prisoner had been released on licence but then recalled. He complained that the procedure infringed his human rights. He had been convicted of manslaughter, and was seen to be a long term danger. The court awarded him compensation saying that . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice HL 21-Jan-2009
The appellant complained that the system for considering the release of a life prisoner did not comply with the Convention when the decision was made by the Secretary of State and not by the Parole Board, or the court. The Board had recommended his . .
Cited – Whiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Prisons

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164979

Schiesser v Switzerland: ECHR 4 Dec 1979

Citations:

(1979-80) 2 EHRR 417, [1979] ECHR 5, 7710/76

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.164886

Regina (Denny) v Acton Youth Court: Admn 21 Apr 2004

The defendant had been committed by the Youth Court to the magistrates court for sentence for attempted robbery. At the time of the offence he had been 17, but on conviction he had attained 18. The district judge had declared that he had no jurisdiction.
Held: The offence could only be tried in the Crown court, and therefore the magistrates could only remit him to the crown court for sentence for an indictable only offence..

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Crane J

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-2004, [2004] EWHC 948 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.199324

Regina v Gowland-Wynn: CACD 26 Nov 2001

Where during a police interview, the defendant had maintained silence without stating facts which went to the heart of his defence, it was proper for the judge to refer to the section which would allow the jury to make proper inferences from that silence. The judge should consider carefully the model direction provided by the Judicial Studies Board, and if usually discuss the form of direction with counsel for both defence and prosecution. It remained the case that the burden of proof lay on the Crown throughout.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Gage and Mr Justice Thomas

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 2715, [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 41, [2002] Crim LR 211

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Disapproved – Regina v Mountford CACD 21-Dec-1998
M was convicted of possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. His defence at trial was that W was the dealer and he was merely a purchaser. He had not mentioned this to the police when questioned, on the ground (he said) that he did not want . .
Followed – Regina v Hearne CACD 4-May-2000
. .
Per incuriam – Regina v Gill CACD 2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.167116

Regina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders: CACD 21 Dec 2001

The appeals concerned convictions from 1990 which had been challenged before, and following decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. It was alleged that certain information had been known to the prosecution, but not disclosed to them. The case concerned arrangements to boost share prices in connection with promoting a company take over. The appellants claimed that the Human Rights Act should be used retrospectively, invalidating the use of evidence obtained under compulsion.
Held: The recent decision in Kansal disallowed such retrospectivity. The Acts of the prosecution were lawful at the time. It was said that by current standards of fairness under common law the trials were unfair. Common law developments were retrospective. Again, the acts complained of were explicitly lawful at the time under statute, and not to be compared with unlawful withholding of evidence. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights was sufficient in itself for the appellants, and did not require the overturning of the convictions. The primacy of Parliament and the provisions of s434 are fatal to the appellants contentions. Allegations about jury tampering were insufficiently established,

Judges:

The Vice President, (Lord Justice Rose), Mr Justice Tomlinson, And, Sir Humphrey Potts

Citations:

Times 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2860

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 1985 434

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.167211

Director of Public Prosecutions v Petrie: Admn 21 Jan 2015

The Director appealed against discharge of their prosecution for abuse of process. On the date fixed for the trial of the Respondent on a charge of driving with excess alcohol in his breath, it was common ground that CCTV footage from the police station was required for the trial. However, the CCTV supplied by the prosecution had not been formatted and could not be played. The prosecution’s application for an adjournment was refused. The Respondent was granted a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 48 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541584

Government of the United States of America v Barnette and another: Admn 2002

The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had not been allowed to defend the claim.
Held: If the United States had been a party to the Convention, Article 6 would have required the Court of Appeal to consider the appellant’s appeal on the merits.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1113 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
Cited – Poitrimol v France ECHR 23-Nov-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs . .
See also – Government of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .

Cited by:

See also – Government of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .
Appeal from – Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.200329

Newton Spence v The Queen: PC 16 Jul 2001

(St. Vincent and the Grenadines) The appellant had been convicted of murder. The victim had died but partly as a result of the surgery to save him. The judge correctly directed the jury that they must be sure the original wound was a continuing, operative and substantial cause of death. The judge discharged one juror late in the trial because she wanted to go on holiday. This was not a proper reason, and the effect was potentially to deprive either party of a proper verdict. The conviction must be quashed.

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Sir Patrick Russell, Sir Christopher Staughton, Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Philip Otton

Citations:

No 47 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 35

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159475

Bennett and Augustus John v The Queen: PC 17 Jul 2001

(Grenada) The appellants had been convicted of a murder. The court of appeal, having accepted that admissions had been extracted wrongfully, and should not have been admitted, applied the proviso to confirm the conviction.
Held: The committee should not act as a second court of appeal as to the facts, and the judgment as to admissibility was not to be set aside. Nevertheless the proviso was wrongly applied, and the convictions must be quashed. When considering the need for a re-trial, the court should consider whether it would serve the interests of justice in Grenada. The case of Bennett was remitted to the court of appeal to consider a re-trial, but the committee did not order a re-trial, and much of the evidence available at the first trial was now inadmissible or discredited, but it was not for the committee to say what further investigation might reveal.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[2001] UKPC 37, Appeal No 74 of 2000

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Evidence, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159476

Everad Nicholls v Regina: PC 13 Dec 2000

(St. Vincent and The Grenadines) It was wrong for an appellate court to order a retrial in order allow the prosecution to bring evidence to make good its case which evidence should have been brought at the first trial. The correct approach was to quash the conviction. It was wrong in principle to allow the prosecution to have a second bite at the cherry when it could have got its evidence together the first time around. The first instance judge could have put the issue squarely before the jury, but did not do so. That caused a mistrial.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001, Appeal No 14 of 2000, [2000] UKPC 52

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Pringle v The Queen PC 27-Jan-2003
PC (Jamaica) The court considered the way in which statistical conclusions drawn from DNA evidence had been presented to the jury. The judge had fallen into the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy.’ Also the court had relied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159437

Charles, Steve Carter and Leroy Carter v The State: PC 26 May 1999

(Trinidad and Tobago) A third trial for murder, with a capital sentence to follow, after a long delay, and when one verdict had been set aside, and a second jury undecided, became an abuse of process. This is usually a judge’s discretion and should be set aside only rarely.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 384, [1999] UKPC 24, (Appeal No 33 of 1998)

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Cited by:

Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159356

Indravani Ramjattan v The State (Trinidad and Tobago): PC 4 Mar 1999

(Trinidad and Tobago) The judicial committee could hear an appeal despite earlier rejection of leave to appeal, provided the new grounds were sufficiently distinctive from the first application and merited leave.

Citations:

Times 01-Apr-1999, [1999] UKPC 8

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159340

Stafford and others v The State (Note): PC 30 Jul 1998

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Where the matter at issue is the exercise of a discretion by a trial judge. ‘It has been said many times that it is not the function of the Judicial Committee to act as a second Court of Criminal Appeal. Save in exceptional circumstances, the Judicial Committee will not embark upon a rehearing of issues such as the weight which may properly be given to the evidence or the inferences which may properly be drawn from it. These are matters which will be left to the Court of Appeal. Its decision as to whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction will not normally be reviewed by this Board.’ and it should not normally interefere with that exercise.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

[1998] UKPC 35, [1999] 1 WLR 2026

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Errol Arthurton v The Queen PC 27-May-2004
PC (British Virgin Islands) The defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse, saying the judge had failed to prevent inadmissible evidence being given to the court, namely a mention by a . .
Cited – Michael Yearwood v The Queen PC 26-Jun-2001
PC (Grenada) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He claimed a misdirection on provocation.
Held: The judge’s direction had been over elaborate, and gave too much weight to the old law. . .
Applied – Kelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159318

Barrow v The State: PC 23 Mar 1998

(Trinidad and Tobago) If the credibility of a defendant is an issue, a good character direction is always relevant and should be given. However, there is no general duty on a judge to inquire into the issue of the accused’s character if this has not been raised by the defence.

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1998, [1998] UKPC 16, [1998] AC 846

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Krishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159296

Thompson v The Queen: PC 16 Feb 1998

(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit the circumstances of the case. As to the significance of one error in the summing up, Lord Hutton noted that it was a brief observation in a lengthy summing-up and that the judge had not elaborated on the statement.
Lord Hutton discussed the need not to mention a voir dire to the jury: ‘It appears that it has been a common practice in the courts in the Caribbean for a trial judge to tell a jury that he or she has held that confessions are voluntary statements. However in England it is recognised that this practice should not be followed and that it constitutes an irregularity for the judge to inform the jury, which has been absent during the voire dire, that he or she has ruled that a confession is admissible. The reason why such a statement by the judge to the jury should not be made is because of the danger that the jury might be influenced by the judge’s view on admissibility in deciding the questions which are for them alone, namely, whether the confession had been made and, if so, whether it was truthful and reliable. Therefore their Lordships are of opinion that the practice should also cease in the Caribbean: see the judgment of the Board in Mitchell v The Queen [1998] UKPC 1; [1998] AC 695.’

Judges:

Lord Hutton

Citations:

[1998] UKPC 6, [1998] AC 811

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Vye etc CACD 7-Apr-1993
Detailed guidance was given on good character directions, as to how and when they should be given, but: ‘Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two respects in which good character may be relevant, ie credibility and propensity, this . .
Applied – Regina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
Applied – 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 by:

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 – Krishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
Cited – Mcgeough, R v CANI 7-May-2013
The defendant appealed against his convictions, inter alia, for membership of a proscribed organisation. He said that the judge should not have admitted in evidence his application for asylum in Sweden which had included his declaration of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159289

Kin-Hung v The Queen: PC 11 Nov 1996

(Hong Kong) Despite the judge’s sympathetic directions as to the inadeqacy of the prosecution case, the defendant was convicted of two rapes.
Held: The test whether each member of an appellate court considers the verdicts ‘unsafe or unsatisfactory’ is part of the very alphabet of the criminal law. The statement that the verdicts were not perverse was shorthand for saying that there was evidence upon which a properly directed jury (as this jury was) could conscientiously have convicted. The court of appeal had applied the law correctly, and the appeal was dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Cooke of Thorndon

Citations:

[1996] UKPC 39

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Cooper (Sean) CACD 1969
The court considered its power to interfere with a jury’s verdict where a trial had been properly conducted: ‘every issue was before the jury and in which the jury was properly instructed, and, accordingly, a case in which this court will be very . .
Cited – Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159199

S Buxoo and Another v The Queen (Mauritius): PC 19 May 1988

(Mauritius) Mauritius had passed an Act extending rights of Appeal. The Board considered and confirmed that it does not sit as a court of criminal appeal. In order to interfere, there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shake the very basis of justice. The Badry case guidelines will continue to be followed. This case did not fall within that ambit and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel Lord Brandon of Oakbrook Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1988] UKPC

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

Cited – In re Dillet PC 1887
Leave to appeal to the Board will not be granted unless ‘by a disregard of the forms of legal process, or by some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done.’ . .
Confirmed – Badry v The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 15-Nov-1982
(Mauritius) The applicant appealed three counts of contempt of court, arising from speeches made by him in the political debate. He had been a minister, but was subject to investigation for fraud. To found a appeal he had to show some blatant or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159150

Codrington v the Queen (Belize): PC 27 Mar 1996

The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had two grounds of appeal, that the judge had failed to get right the burden of proof, and that his counsel had not allowed him to give evidence when he had wanted to. The case was remitted. Although the judge’s summing up was fair, the committee was unable to asses the truth of what had happened with counsel, and the court of appeal was better placed to make that judgement.

Citations:

[1996] UKPC 6

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

distinguished – Lawrence Pat Sankar v State of Trinidad and Tobago PC 16-Dec-1994
(Trinidad and Tobago) An advocate’s failure to advise his client on the need for him to give evidence, and the consequences of his not doing so may be enough to justify an appeal against conviction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159160

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 1994. He complained that the delay was an abuse, and his appeal succeeded. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel said: ‘this Constitution, unlike some of those in other Caribbean countries and elsewhere, particularly the United States of America and Canada, does not include in the catalogue of fundamental rights and freedoms the right to a speedy trial or trial within a reasonable time.’
The provisions of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago do not confer on individuals the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The delay was not unjustifiable, the chances of prejudice were small; the trial process would have provided ample protection for the accused; there was no danger of the trial being unfair; finally, the case was not in any sense exceptional so as to justify a stay.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

[1996] AC 856, Appeal No 53 of 1995, [1996] UKPC 2, [1996] UKPC 19

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Citing:

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 – 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 – 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 – Jago v District Court of New South Wales 12-Oct-1989
(High Court of Australia) If applications to stop criminal proceedings for abuse were commonly granted, they would be seen with suspicion. . .
Cited – Nankissoon Boodram v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 19-Feb-1996
The court considered the effect of prejudicial reporting on a trial: ‘In a case such as this, the publications either will or will not prove to have been so harmful that when the time for the trial arrives the techniques available to the trial judge . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Vincent v The Queen; Franklyn v the Queen PC 30-Jun-1993
Jamaica- prosecution must provide copies of statements to defence. The provisions of section 20(1) and (6) of the Jamaican Constitution ‘do no more than codify in writing the requirements of the common law which ensure that an accused person . .
Cited – Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Cheung (Wai-Bun) PC 1994
(Hong Kong) The defendant was indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and false accounting, the allegation being that the false accounting offences had been committed in order to conceal the conspiracy. The Crown sought to rely on the cover-up . .
Cited – Sookermany v Director of Public Prosecutions 1-May-1996
The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed an appeal against refusal of constitutional relief claimed on the ground of undue delay:- ‘As there are admittedly measures available to a trial judge to negative the prejudicial effect on the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Boodhoo, Jagram, (suing on behalf of themselves and the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sadha) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 1-Apr-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The complainant said that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the court’s delay. Proceedings had begun in 1987 for redress with regard to a land dispute. There was substantial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159174

Farrington v The Queen: PC 17 Jun 1996

(Bahamas) The applicant sought leave to appeal as a poor person. He had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He had sought to argue that the delay in his execution had contravened his right not to be subjected to unusual and cruel punishment as established in Pratt. His application for a stay pending the decision on this constitutional question was dismissed, but a stay pending the appeal was allowed.
Held: The decision to reject a stay of execution without making a formal dismissal grounded an appeal, and leave was given, but ‘On the other hand, for the avoidance of doubt their Lordships make clear that even in a case where an appeal lies as of right their Lordships consider that it would be inappropriate to grant special leave to appeal as a poor person where it is plain beyond rational argument that the appeal is doomed to fail.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1996, [1996] UKPC 20

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another PC 2-Nov-1993
(Jamaica) A five year delay in execution is excessive, and can itself amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. ‘There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for many years. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Constitutional

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.159178

Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole: HL 24 Jul 1997

The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is not in conformity with the principles relating to disclosure established by the decisions of the Court of Appeal subsequent to the trial of the appellants, and the rule should no longer be applied. ‘ However the conviction of neither defendant was unsafe.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1997, [1997] UKHL 35, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 43, [1998] AC 382, [1997] 3 All ER 780, [1997] 3 WLR 458

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Russell-Jones CACD 1995
The Crown cannot be required to adduce evidence which (or to tender for cross-examination a witness whose evidence) is not capable of belief: ‘. . . the prosecution ought normally to call or offer to call all the witnesses who give direct evidence . .
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 . .
Overruled – Rex v Bryant and Dickson CCA 1946
A fraud occurred in respect of the repairing of ambulances in a garage operated by a company in which the defendant Dickson was the major shareholder and where the defendant Bryant worked. An employee of the company at the garage would make an . .
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 – Dallison v Caffery CACD 1965
It is for the detaining authority to justify all periods of detention.
The court described the common law duty on a prosecutor to disclose material. Lord Denning MR said: ‘The duty of a prosecuting counsel or solicitor, as I have always . .
Cited – Regina v Stinchcombe 1991
(Supreme Court of Canada) The Crown had decided not to call a witness who was considered unworthy of credit by Crown counsel. The witness could have given evidence directly relevant to the issues arising at the trial. The Crown also refused to . .
Cited – Regina v Seymour CACD 19-Dec-1995
A material irregularity had occurred because the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defence that they were in possession of a statement signed by a defence witness as to alibi which was used to cross-examine her when she gave evidence.
Cited – Regina v Williams CACD 15-Apr-1994
Where the prosecution had taken a statement which undermined the credibility of a witness supporting a defence alibi, the prosecution was not obliged to give a copy of the statement to the defence. . .
Cited – Regina v Lawson CACD 1-Jun-1989
The prosecution did not give the defence a copy of the statement of a witness as to material facts which supported the defence case because it considered that it might require to use the statement if the person who had made it were called as a . .
Cited – Regina v Leyland Justices, Ex parte Hawthorn QBD 1979
A motorist successfully challenged his conviction for careless driving because of a failure by the prosecutor, in breach of a duty owed to the court and the defence, to disclose the existence of witnesses who could have given evidence favourable to . .
Cited – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led . .
Cited – Regina v 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 Stinchombe 1991
(Supreme Court of Canada) Sopinka J described the fruits of a police investigation as: ‘not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction, but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.’ . .

Cited by:

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 – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Cited – Nunn, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
Limits to Duty To Investigate
The claimant had been convicted of a murder. He continued to protest his innocence, and now sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to act upon his requests for further investigations which might prove his innocence.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158909

Regina v Wicks: HL 21 May 1997

Criminal proceedings, forming part of the general scheme of enforcement of planning control contained in Part VII of the Act, had been taken.
Held: The validity of a planning enforcement notice must be challenged in civil proceedings, not during a defence on enforcement. In looking at Part VII of the Act, the scheme of enforcement of planning control which it exhibits and the history of its provisions, the conclusion is that ‘enforcement notice’ means a notice issued by the planning authority which is formally valid and has not been quashed. The duty of the landowner is clear: if the enforcement notice has not been quashed, he must obey it. ‘the distinction between substantive and procedural invalidity appears to cut across the distinction between grounds of invalidity which require no extrinsic evidence and those which do.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 26-May-1997, Gazette 17-Sep-1997, [1997] UKHL 21, [1998] AC 92, [1997] 2 All ER 801, [1997] 2 WLR 876

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Part IV

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Wicks CACD 19-Apr-1995
A defendant facing a charge of not complying with an enforcement notice may not challenge the validity of the notice upon which the enforcement proceedings are based by asserting it to be unreasonable. . .
Doubted – Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions; Director of Public Prosecutions v Percy QBD 1993
The defendants appealed against convictions for having entered military bases contrary to various bye-laws. They challenged the validity of the bye-laws.
Held: The validity of a bye-law could be challenged in criminal proceedings, but where . .

Cited by:

Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v North West Estates plc and others ChD 31-May-2002
The planning authority sought injunctions for enforcement notices. The landowner argued that human rights law required the court when looking at such a request to look at the entire planning history.
Held: Although the court could look to a . .
Appealed to – Regina v Wicks CACD 19-Apr-1995
A defendant facing a charge of not complying with an enforcement notice may not challenge the validity of the notice upon which the enforcement proceedings are based by asserting it to be unreasonable. . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158896

Regina v Kansal, on a Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission (2): CACD 24 May 2001

Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected common law the effect could be retrospective, since common law was deemed always to have been the way it now is. The result was that standards of evidence in criminal cases had retrospectively made many convictions liable to be set aside.
‘(i) The CCRC, subject to the proper exercise of the discretion conferred by section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, can refer to this court a conviction following a trial whenever it took place;
(ii) this court, once such a reference has been made, has no option, however old the case, but to declare the conviction unsafe if that is the result either of the admission of evidence obtained in breach of article 6 or of a change in the common law, which is deemed always to have been that which it is authoritatively declared to be, as, for example, by reason of R v Preddy’,

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Rougier J, McCombie J

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1260, [2001] 3 WLR 751

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Kansal CACD 24-Jun-1992
K had been convicted of two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was also convicted of two counts under the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that being a bankrupt (a) he removed property which he was . .
Cited – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Administrative, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158770

Regina v John Victor Hayward, Anthony William Jones, Paul Nigel Purvis: CACD 31 Jan 2001

A defendant can forego his right to attend his trial, but he still had the general right to be present, and to have legal representation at the trial. The court’s discretion to proceed in his absence should only be exercised with great care. A trial in the absence of a defendant could easily lead to an unfair trial. The right of a defendant can be lost, for example if he absconds. The trial judge had to be fair to the defendant, but must also allow for the interests of the prosecutor. The judge should allow for any future likelihood of the defendant becoming available, the ability of the legal representatives to obtain instructions, and the extent of disadvantage of proceeding in his absence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Hooper, Goldring JJ

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, Gazette 01-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 168, [2001] 3 WLR 125, [2001] Cr App R 11, [2001] QB 862

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Spinnato, Re v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Another Admn 20-Dec-2001
The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued . .
Cited – Mariotti v Government of Italy and others Admn 2-Dec-2005
The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential . .
Cited – Johnson, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Dec-2005
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision by the magistrates to proceed with criminal charges against him in his absence. He suffered confirmed depression. There were several adjournments.
Held: ‘despite the unsatisfactory and indeed . .
Cited – Morsby v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court Admn 31-Oct-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of the magistrates refusal to set aside a conviction entered in his absence. He had been in custody and not produced for the hearing.
Held: The review was granted. The judge had not established that the . .
Cited – Gough, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2001
Appeal against conviction for burglary: ‘The appeal is concerned only with the directions given to the jury as to the inferences which they might draw after the appellant absconded during the course of his trial.’
Held: The direction was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158742

Regina v Burley, Molnar, Stanton: CACD 22 Mar 2001

The defendants appealed against their conviction for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. They denied knowledge that the goods (cars) were stolen.
Held: The judge had failed to direct the jury not to discuss the case outside court. He had failed to consult counsel when preparing his directions with the result that the directions failed to give adequate Lucas directions which distinguished between te defendants and failed to distinguish between them when warning as to the reliability of evidence given by each defendant against the others. Nor had he satisfactorily clarified the need for dishonesty as part of any finding of guilt for handling stolen goods, or summed up the evidence. There were serious flaws in the directions. The convictions were quashed

Judges:

Waller LJ, Garland, Sachs JJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 731

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
Cited – Regina v Prime CACD 1973
Widgery LCJ said: ‘It is important in all criminal cases that the judge should on the first occasion when the jury separate warn them not to talk about the case to anybody who is not one of their number.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158759

Regina v Naviede: CACD 21 Mar 1997

The defendant appealed from his conviction for dishonesty. He said that he should have allowed hi to represent himself as to certain aspect of his case, but to have legal representation for others.
Held: The judge was right to reject such a proposition as unworkable. The claim that he had been interrupted and treated unfairly by the judge also failed.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 784

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – G and C Kreglinger v The New Patagonian Meat and Cold Storage Company HL 20-Nov-1913
Mortgagor’s collateral dvantage is not a clog
The appellant woolbrokers had lent the respondent andpound;10,000 with a floating charge over its undertaking. The loan agreement provided that, for five years, the appellants would have first refusal over all sheepskins sold by the company. The . .
Applied – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
Not followed – Regina v Halai CACD 15-Jul-1982
The defendant went to his solicitor, who was also an agent of a building society, to raise a mortgage to purchase a house. The defendant gave false details in the form which was intended to induce the building society to make an advance. He signed . .
Cited – Regina v Widdowson CACD 1986
The defendant made dishonest representations in a document which might, at a later stage, have led to a hire purchase agreement.
Held: Obtaining a hire purchase agreement can amount to the obtaining of services. Halai held that a mortgage . .
Cited – Regina v Roberts and George CACD 31-Jul-1996
The defendants, a lorry driver and his employer, appealed against convictions for causing death by dangerous driving, and procuring the same. A wheel came loose from the wagon on the motorway, and collided with another vehicle, killing the driver. . .
Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Briggs (Joan) CACD 12-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed her conviction for theft. She had involved herself in the sale of an elderly relatives house and arranged for a new house to be bought in her and another name.
Held: Hilton was to be distinguished. There, the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.150239

Regina v Reader, Connor, Hart: CACD 7 Apr 1998

Reader gave a no comment interview and did not testify at trial, because it was common ground that his counsel had done no more than put the prosecution to proof.
Held: A setion 34 direction was wrong under these circumstances.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Rougier J, The Common Serjeant of London

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 1226

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.154100

Regina v Guardian Newspapers Ltd: CACD 15 Sep 1998

The defendants purported to serve a notice under Rule 24A(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 of an intention to apply for a hearing in camera of their application that the trial be stopped as an abuse of process.
Held: ‘This is not a formal judgment. The Court is of the opinion, for reasons which will be given in due course, that Rule 24A of the Crown Court Rules 1982 did apply to the proceedings before Collins J. Accordingly Rule 16B of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1968 applies. ‘

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 2610

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crown Court Rules 1982 24A(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – ex parte Guardian Newspapers Ltd CACD 30-Sep-1998
The defendants purported to serve a notice under Rule 24A(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 of an intention to apply for a hearing in camera of their application that the trial be stopped as an abuse of process.
Held: Where an application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.155484

Iqbal v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Oct 2004

Appeal against conviction for handling stolen goods – admission of statement made before officer formed suspicion of theft. The prosecution had first conducted their case on the footing that it had been the property of his employer, but then were unable to establish that.
Held: Though the conversation should be admitted, the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2567 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Deakin CACD 1972
On a charge of handling stolen goods (on the facts), the averment of ownership was not a material averment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219536

Assets Recovery Agency, Regina (on the Application Of) v He and Another: Admn 7 Dec 2004

Application was made for an interim receiving order pending resolution of criminal proceedings. Collins J said: ‘the approach of the Director must be to let criminal proceedings take precedence, as it were, and only act if such proceedings are either not being taken or for any reason may have failed, if notwithstanding their failure or the inability for whatever reason to take them, she takes the view that she can establish within the requirements of the Act that the property in question was unlawfully obtained.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 3021 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Olden v Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 26-Feb-2010
The applicant appealed against a recovery order made under the act against his assets. His conviction had been set aside as unsafe. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.221029

McCubbin, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 12 Oct 2004

The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the magistrates to convict him of assault.
Held: No point of law had been raised. The reasons given were adequate. In truth this was a challenge on the facts, and the defendant should have appealed to the Crown Court. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Davis J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2504 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Harrow Crown Court Ex Parte Dave QBD 20-Oct-1993
A Crown Court when sitting as an appellate court must give reasons for its decision. The court reviewed earlier decisions, and concluded that where a court is going to reject expert evidence it must give proper reasons: ‘The appellant was entitled . .
Cited – Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 2001
The defendant appealed saying that the magistrates in convicting him had given the impression that they had applied a lower standard of proof than was required.
Held: Even though there was no basis to find that the magistrates had in fact . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Ukpabi v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 18-Apr-2008
Appeal against conviction for assaulting police constables in the execution of their duty.
Held: The magistrates had given the impression that in convicting him they were not fully convinced of the evidence against him, and that therefore a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.219269

Preston Borough Council v McGrath: CA 12 May 2000

The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
Held: The document had not been given to the police under compulsion, reducing their obligations. It was possible that they might have shown it to the authority without having handed it over, In any event any privielge or complaint was now lost since the defendant had himself attached it to his pleadings.

Judges:

Lord Justice Morritt, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Tuckey

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 151

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Preston Borough Council v McGrath ChD 18-Feb-1999
The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under . .
Cited – Marcel v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1992
A writ of subpoena ad duces tecum had been issued requiring the production by the police for use in civil proceedings of documents seized during a criminal fraud investigation. The victim of the fraud needed them to pursue his own civil case.
Cited – Miller and Another v Scorey and Others ChD 2-Apr-1996
Using disclosed documents in second action with similar parties may be a contempt, depending significantly upon whether any undertaking, express or implied was given. The court struck out an action where proceedings were commenced in reliance on . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147184

Re N: CA 20 May 1999

The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder.
Held: ‘In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. ‘ Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1452, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 257

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Couling v Coxe 7-Dec-1848
A plaintiff in a civil action who has issued a witness summons or subpoena to a witness to attend may have an action against a witness who fails to attend, but the damages recoverable were limited to the costs of an abortive hearing when the . .
Cited – Crewe v Field 1896
Claim for damages against witness not attending court.
Held: A plaintiff in such a case could recover as damages the loss which the missing witness could have established. . .
Cited – Roberts v J and F Stone Lighting and Radio Ltd 1945
Claim for damages against witness who fails to attend court though summonsed when the case was lost.
Held: the reason why no such claim had in fact succeeded was because of the difficulty in establishing the loss. . .

Cited by:

Cited – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146367

Toner v Regina: CACD 15 Mar 2019

Appeal against refusal of defendant’s application for separate trials of sets of allegations of different offences allegedly committed 24 years apart.
Held: Not allowed. Amendments to the rules allowed such trials where evidence of commission of one set of offences might be admissible as evidence of bad character on the other offence.
However it would be difficult to say that sch allegations were part of a series of offences.

Judges:

Bean LJ, Sir David Calvert-Smith, Judge Williams

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 447, [2019] WLR(D) 157

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Indictments Act 1915

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634824

Regina v Chandler: CCA 5 Feb 1964

Appeal from convictions of causing a public nuisance by inciting others to cause a public nuisance by obstructing the highway and two counts of himself causing a public nuisance in the same way. He was said to have lead demonstrations in London, attempting to breach police lines. The fundamental question was whether after the exercise of the undoubted right to seven peremptory challenges a prisoner has the right of going through the panel asking prospective Jurors to stand by before having to show cause.

Judges:

Lord Parker LCJ, Paull, Widgery JJ

Citations:

(1964) 128 JP 244, [1964] 2 QB 322, [1964] EWCA Crim 1, [1964] 1 All ER 761, [1964] 2 WLR 689, (1964) 48 Cr App Rep 143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.653257

Regina v Chandler: CACD 2002

The Court of Appeal will not interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of the facts unless there has been shown to have been a serious error.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 3167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Moore and Another CACD 13-Feb-2013
The appellants said that they had been entrapped into committing the offences of which they stood convicted. Their applications for stay on the ground of abuse of process had been rejected.
Held: The appeal failed.
Rix Lj said: ‘the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.471002

Smith’s Case: 1838

An indictment ought to conclude against the peace of the sovereign in whose reign the offence is hid to have been committed

Citations:

[1838] EngR 264, (1838) 2 Lewin 232, (1838) 168 ER 1138 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.312270

Regina (Murphy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Brannan) v Same: Admn 10 Feb 2005

The appellants sought compensation for their imprisonment having been (Mr Brannan’s father) wrongly convicted. They sought to bring in new evidence. The first appellant and the second appellant’s father had been convicted of murder. The second appeal was after the police finally revealed evidence supporting the defendants’ defence that the victim had been armed.
Held: New evidence supported what could properly be described as a new fact could support a claim even if it related to a matter which had been in issue at the trial. However the claim was based upon non-disclosure. That was a matter of a fact not a mater of evidence. The covenant upon from which the section was drawn referred only to facts emerging after the ordinary appellate jurisdiction had been exhausted. A fact disclosed before an appeal within the normal time limit could not generate a claim. The fact must also be more than a contributing factor, it must be the principal if not only reason for the conviction being quashed.

Judges:

Richards, Pitchford JJ

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] EWHC 140 (Admin), [2005] 2 All ER 763, [2005] 1 WLR 3516

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 133(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Clibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary, to refuse his application for compensation. He had first been convicted and imprisoned and then had his conviction quashed. The respondent did not think that the conviction was . .
Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.223478

Director of Public Prosecutions v Lonsdale: QBD 16 Feb 2001

Where a motorist told an officer at the roadside that he suffered from bronchitis, and could not provide a specimen of breath, and he wanted to rely upon the same reason at the police station, he could not claim that the officer in the station should know of his objection, but should make it clear again. It was not open to him to say nothing at all, to make no attempt to provide a specimen, and then later to seek to assert a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen of breath. There was no need to look at the two sections concurrently. The later subsection had been irrelevant in this matter.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 16-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a), 7(3)(a), 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.80029

P (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Barking Youth Court: Admn 17 Apr 2002

Application for judicial review of decision that a child, P, was fit to stand trial on accusations of offences under the 1971 and 1997 Acts.

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 734 (Admin), [2002] MHLR 304, [2002] 2 Cr App R 19, [2002] Crim LR 657, (2002) 166 JP 641

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Criminal Damage Act 1971, Youth Courts (Constitution) Rules1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Children

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.241517

Regina v Ali, Regina v Rasool (Mauritius): PC 25 Mar 1992

The Mauritian Director of Public Prosecution’s combined duty prosecute and power to select the trial court with different penalties, infringed the constitutional need to maintain the separation of powers.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Mar-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.88370

Wilson, Regina v: CACD 16 Jan 2008

Appeal from conviction at a trial where a juror saw the defendant’s name also in the court lists for later that week. In ruling against the application to discharge the jury, the judge adverted seriatim to a number of points which he enumerated. First, he observed that since television screens of this kind had been installed, this was a situation which arose in this Crown Court routinely and no doubt in others. Secondly, he observed that the list was also published these days on the internet and the jury could find it there if they chose to look. Thirdly, he pointed out that the recent expansion of the class of persons eligible to serve on juries to include legal professionals means that juries are likely to have more knowledge of, as he put it, the intricacies of the law than traditionally was to be expected. Fourthly, he said that there was no evidence that the juror had gone any further than making the non-committal enquiry which he had or than accepting the non-committal reply. Next and fifthly, he directed himself that it would be wrong to treat the jury as if it would not pay proper attention to the directions which were given to it. Sixthly, and as it seems to us principally, he concluded that in this case it beggared common sense to say that the jury was not going to know quite enough about the appellant’s bad character in any event for it to make any difference.
Held: The appeal failed. The court understand the dilemma with which counsel was faced unexpectedly. With hindsight, it would have been very much better if the issue had been tackled face on by the judge, whatever the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. It was plainly at least possible that one or more jurors might work out that the appellant faced some other charge. The better course, as it seems to us, would have been to say either that they should pay no attention to something which might well have an explanation in the technology, or that whether he faced another charge or not was entirely irrelevant to the question which they had conscientiously sworn to try, namely whether he had done what was alleged in this case.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 134

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.271265

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 dismiss the appeal. As to section 28 of the 1981 Act: ‘There is no definition of the word ‘decision’ in the Act of 1981. The use of the word in conjunction with the words ‘judgment’ and ‘order’ is some indication that appeals by way of case stated are meant to be confined to appeals from final decisions rather than preliminary rulings.’ and
‘I have come to the conclusion that looking at the word ‘decision’ in its context and also in the light of the history of appeals by way of case stated before 1971 and the parallel history of appeals by way of case stated direct from the justices there is a very powerful argument for construing the word ‘decision’ as meaning final decision. Indeed, in the case of criminal proceedings I am satisfied that the word should be so construed and that, whether regarded as a matter of jurisdiction or of invariable practice, the High Court will not entertain an appeal by way of case stated in a criminal case unless the Crown Court has reached a final determination.’ and
‘Nevertheless, the matter has been fully argued before us and I think it would be helpful if I were to express an opinion on the merits of the appeal even though it must be appreciated that what I say is obiter. I would, however, add a warning that it should not be assumed that in other cases the High Court will be prepared to express any opinion, however informal. The appeal may simply be dismissed.’
Pill J agreed.

Judges:

Neill LJ, Pill J

Citations:

[1990] 1 QB 1052

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.253206

I, P, O, I and G, Regina v: CACD 14 Aug 2009

(CII, Regina v) Whether judge at preparatory hearing could rule against his sitting at any later trial and whether the ruling ought to have been the subject of an interlocutory appeal with a view to saving court time in the trial.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1793, [2009] EWCA Crim B1, [2010] 1 WLR 1125, [2010] Crim LR 312, [2010] 1 Cr App R 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Criminal Justice Act 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – BM, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2018
The defendant appealed from a preliminary ruling that his body modification services were not in law capable of being consented to and therefore amounted to an assault.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘we can see no good reason why body modification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.392891

Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court: QBD 23 Jan 2003

In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the Youth Court decision.
Held: The test for a review of a decision of the Youth Court is whether that decision was wrong. The court is reviewing the decision, not acting as an appellate court. Here, the statute required the youth court to commit to the crown court where the stated conditions were satisfied. Those conditions were that the offence was listed in the 2000 Act, and that the powers under subsection (3) of the section would arise. The Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court, and guidance for their use.

Judges:

Stanley Burton J

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-2003

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 24(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 91(3) 165(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another Admn 25-Jun-2002
. .
Cited – Regina (W) v Southampton Youth Court Admn 2002
The court discussed the principles applicable when sentencing very young offenders: ‘The simple principle underlying the current legislation for sentencing very young offenders is that, generally speaking, first-time offenders aged 13 and 14, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.178850

Regina on the Application of A and Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 14 Jun 2001

A company director can be convicted of theft from his company even though the act might technically be the act of the company. Here company directors had paid bribes to people with whom the company intended to do business. The bribes were paid out of company funds and with the intention of benefiting the company. Nevertheless, appropriation under the Act, does not need to be without the consent of the owner. The dishonesty element must be directed toward the owner of the property.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 456

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 3(1)

Company, Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140336

Regina on the Application of Hussain v Derby Magistrates’ Court and Lord Chancellor’s Department: Admn 3 Jul 2001

The defendant had been brought before the magistrates after being arrested for breach of bail conditions. He now challenged the adjournment of the case to a different bench, and whether such a bench had power to punish him.
Held: Sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the 1976 Act created a power to stand down a case to a different bench provided it was for determination on the same day.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 507, [2001] All ER (D) 26, [2001] 1 WLR 245

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976 7(4) 7(5) 7(6)

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140343

Regina v Redbridge Youth Court and Another: Admn 22 Mar 2001

The sections were exceptions to the normal practice of giving evidence in the court room, for which in the case of live link an individual case had to be made each time. The court should strike a balance between the ‘right of the defendant to have a hearing in accordance with the norm’ and ‘the interests not only of the child witness but also of justice, to ensure that the witness will be able to give evidence and give evidence unaffected by the stress of appearing in court itself.’

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 209, [2001] 1 WLR 2403

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 32 32A

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140296

Regina v Canterbury Crown Court ex parte Regentford Ltd: Admn 21 Dec 2000

The disallowance of a judicial review of a judge’s order refusing an award of a defendant’s costs after an acquittal in the Crown Court was not an infringement of the defendant’s article 3 human rights to a fair trial. The costs order was refused on the basis that the company had brought suspicion on itself.

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2001, [2000] EWHC Admin 440

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140257

Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission, Michael John Hunt: Admn 21 Mar 2000

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 307

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Hunt CA 24-Nov-2000
The Commissioners of the Inland Revenue did have power to conduct a prosecution at the Crown Court without first obtaining the consent of the Attorney General, even though it was a police officer had actually laid the charge. A prosecution was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140121

Regina v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Headley: Admn 19 Aug 1999

Matters which would be normally relevant when a court considers granting or withholding bail are not necessarily sufficient, or even to be allowed for, when considering an application to extend the custody time limits. Crown Court judges are recommended to set a trial date at an early stage in proceedings to avoid such difficulties.

Citations:

Times 04-Nov-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140067