Category: Criminal Practice

Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Jul 1999

The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the failure to adduce that evidence on the part of the prosecution is simply an oversight and by that I emphasise an oversight in that the prosecution has not adduced evidence of that which they are in a position to call that day, either by producing the document or calling the witnesses, in my judgment particular considerations do apply. It would not, in my judgment, be consonant with the proper and due administration of justice in this particular field of criminal prosecution for there to be acquittals simply by reason of oversight in the sense that I have described. Justice will not be done if defendants are acquitted purely because of an oversight which was capable of being corrected there and then. The argument takes the canons of procedure to unjustified limits. It must always be a matter for the magistrates to consider anxiously. In any particular case, they will have to consider whether or not to exercise their discretion so as to permit the prosecution to fill the gap in their case.’

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 737

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Webb v Leadbetter QBD 1966
One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to . .
Cited – Phelan v Back 1972
. .
Cited – Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster QBD 23-May-1995
There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court . .

Cited by:

Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140001

Regina v Bradford Crown Court ex parte Crossling: Admn 19 Jul 1999

When a judge makes a fundamental mistake as to the application of the rules for extending custody time limits, the correct approach is to make a renewed application to him, or, in his absence, to the senior judge on the circuit. It was not correct to seek judicial review of the order made. Such an application was not the same application, and another judge could, if necessary, make the order required.

Citations:

Times 21-Sep-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 704

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(3)

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139968

Regina v West London Magistrates’ Court ex parte Waite: Admn 7 Jul 1999

On the first day of the trial, the complainant was allowed to lead on matters prior to the date of the first allegation. At the adjourned hearing, with a different court clerk, the defendant was not allowed to cross examine the complainant on the same matters. The justices failed to state a case, and so the application was by way of judicial review.
Held: The magistrates should have allowed cross examination. The conviction was quashed.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 650

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139914

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Whitehead: Admn 17 Jun 1999

Where a defendant had been committed for trial in custody, and the trial had been begun only one day within the custody time limits, but then, three months into the trial, the trial had to be abandoned, the jury discharged and a re-trial ordered, an application to apply the time limits was refused. The custody time limits applied explicitly only to the preliminary stages of the process before the jury was sworn.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Jun-1999, Times 05-Jul-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 557

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 22(3)(b)

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139821

Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson: Admn 18 May 1999

The defendant sought judicial review of the decision not to refer her case back to the court of appeal. She had been convicted of the murder of her hsuband’s new partner. She said it had been her husband.
Held: The court set out the approach to be taken when a defendant raises the defence of diminished resonsibility for the first time on appeal.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill summarised the protection given by the 1968 Act: ‘It is essential to the health and proper functioning of a modern democracy that the citizen accused of crime should be fairly tried and adequately protected against the risk and consequences of wrongful conviction. To this end, police operations to investigate crime and interrogate suspects are closely controlled by statutes, codes and rules; the conduct of prosecutions is entrusted to an independent, professional prosecuting authority; and legal aid is made available to fund all but the very well-to-do to defend themselves in serious cases. The main protection of the citizen accused of serious crime is, however, to be found in our system of trial by judge and jury. This system is so familiar as to require no description. But we draw attention to two characteristic features of jury trial germane to this application. First, the procedure is adversarial. There is no duty on the trial judge, as in an inquisitorial proceeding, to investigate what defences might, if pursued, be open to a defendant, nor to interrogate or call witnesses. It is the function of the judge to direct the jury on the relevant law and to summarise (perhaps very briefly) the evidence, and to define the issues raised by the prosecution and the defence, including any possible defence disclosed by the evidence even if not relied on by the defendant. The judge need not, and should not, go further. Secondly, the decision on the defendant’s guilt is made following a trial, continuous from day to day, by a jury assembled only for that trial, with no responsibility for the proceedings before the trial begins or after it ends. Thus the decision-making tribunal must reach its decision on the argument and evidence deployed before it at a final, once-for-all, trial. A defendant may quite properly put forward defences cumulatively and alternatively at a single trial, but not serially at different trials.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Ognall J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 452, [2000] 1 Cr App R 141

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2

Cited by:

Cited – Erskine, Regina v; Regina v Williams CACD 14-Jul-2009
The defendants had been separately convicted of murder several years ago. They sought the quashing of the convictions and substitution of convictions for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal of Erskine . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139716

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan: Admn 18 May 1999

Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the extension.

Citations:

Times 31-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 454

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(a) 22(3)(b)

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139718

Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co: Admn 12 May 1999

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and so the police had applied to a circuit judge under section 9.
Held: The order should be quashed. The judge should have given reasons for his order. ‘it is not always easy for a hard-pressed circuit judge to remember to give reasons when he has no more assistance than can be provided by a police officer on his own making what the officer no doubt regards as a formal ex parte application, but the reality is that –
(1) the person or persons against whom an order has been made are entitled to know why it is made:
(2) the requirement to give reasons should help to ensure that a judge does, as he must, address each of the statutory requirements before making the order, and –
(3) if it is necessary to review an order in this court reasons will be of great assistance. We will know why the judge decided as he did. ‘
Neither the police nor the court below appeared to have given thought to the need to resptrict the scope of the search order, and thus to bypass the protection given by the Act to special material.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ VP, Mitchell J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 424

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 9

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Propend Finance Pty Ltd and Others QBD 17-Mar-1994
A Home Secretary requesting warrants must be specific on the type he required. It was his duty, and not that of the police to state the method of seizure of documents for use in a foreign jurisdiction. A judge making an order should give reasons for . .
Cited – Regina v Southampton Crown Court ex parte J and P 21-Dec-1992
A special material warrant was quashed, partly because it was too widely drawn. It was suspected that there had been thefts from the solicitor’s firms client account. Watkins LJ discussed the need for a judge to give reasons for a decision under . .
Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court ex parte Waitt QBD 1988
The solicitor applicant challenged the grant of a search order under section 9.
Held: The order was quashed. The court underlined the need for judges to be scrupulous in discharging their responsibilities so as to ensure that use of the . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Switalski 1991
It is preferable, in an ordinary case, for an application for a search warrant in a solicitor’s office to be made on notice. However, if a solicitor under investigation were to have knowledge of what was contemplated the material sought might . .
Cited – Regina v Derby Magistrates Court Ex Parte B HL 19-Oct-1995
No Breach of Solicitor Client Confidence Allowed
B was charged with the murder of a young girl. He made a confession to the police, but later changed his story, saying his stepfather had killed the girl. He was acquitted. The stepfather was then charged with the murder. At his committal for trial, . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Crown Court ex parte Hill 1991
Bingham LJ said: ‘The Police and Criminal Evidence Act governs a field in which there are two very obvious public interests. There is, first of all, a public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, there is a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139688

Mills, Regina v: CACD 1 May 2018

The court was asked whether, if the prosecution are discontented with the terms of a default order in confiscation proceedings, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has jurisdiction to determine a challenge to that order.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 944

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.609744

Regina v Elliott: CACD 1985

The defendant was faced with a charge under the 1882 Act. The prosecution required that the consent of the Attorney-General be given before proceedings commenced. The consent was only given after he had been charged, but before the trial.
Held: Section 63 of the 1982 Act should be interpreted as meaning that instituting proceedings relates to the time when a person comes to court to answer the charge.

Citations:

(1985) 81 Cr App R 115

Statutes:

Administration of Justice Act 1982 63(1), Explosive Substances Act 1882 2, Prosecution of Offences Act 1979 6(1)(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Considered – Regina v Brentwood Justices ex parte Jones QBD 1979
Proceedings had begun by arrest without warrant. Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘that the proceedings commenced when the suspect was taken to the police station pursuant to such arrest, and when he was formally charged in the presence of a station officer, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coulson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.450229

P, Regina v: Misc 18 Mar 2008

Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings.

Judges:

Mole QC HHJ

Citations:

[2008] EW Misc 2 (EWCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another PC 24-May-2001
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small . .
Cited – Regina v Rowbotham and others 1988
Ontario Court of Appeal – ‘In our view a trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial may, upon being satisfied . .
Cited – Regina v Dadshani 8-Feb-2008
Ontario – Superior Court of Justice – proceeding in the nature of a Rowbotham or Fisher application to secure state funding for the defences of the accused who are facing charges of first degree murder. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review QBNI 20-Mar-2013
The applicant, a convicted prisoner sought a declaration that the respondent’s decision to make no provision for exceptional circumstances in the payment of fees under the 2011 Amendment Rules is unlawful and a declaration that the said Rules . .
Cited – In re Brownlee for Judicial Review SC 29-Jan-2014
The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Aid

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.406761

Ew v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others: CA 11 Feb 2010

The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that decision. He said that no leave was required because it was part of criminal proceedings not covered by the order against him. He objected now to Moses LJ hearing the case saying there was the appearance of bias.
Held: An informed observer could not consider that the circumstances suggested bias in Moses LJ.
Proceedings for a declaration that the claimant did not need leave are not proceedings in a criminal cause or matter, and there was no bar preventing an appeal. Though the original proceedings were criminal, the judicial review request abd was a civil procedure and permission was required by the applicant under section 42(3).

Judges:

Smith LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 70

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 42(3) 18(1)(a), Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ex parte Waldron CA 1986
The court was asked whether section 139 precluded a mental patient from applying for leave to move for judicial review.
Held: A restriction on the bringing of civil or criminal proceedings imposed by the section 139 did not apply to . .
Cited – Regina v Blandford Magistrates Court ex parte Pamment CA 1990
The Applicant was charged and remanded into custody by the Justices, having refused conditional bail. Bail was later granted, but he sought judicial review of the original remand decision, just before his trial, which then intervened. After the . .
Cited – Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland CA 15-Jul-1997
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
Cited – Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions CA 29-Aug-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant’s costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit.
Held: . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Regina v Highbury Corner Magistrates Court ex parte E 1991
An application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision taken in the course of civil proceedings is itself a civil proceeding. . .
Approved – Regina v Tottenham Magistrates Court ex parte Gleaves Admn 18-Dec-1992
An application for permission to bring judicial review and the judicial review proceedings themselves (whether in a civil or criminal cause or matter) are all civil proceedings and are caught by a civil proceedings order against the applicant.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.396709

Regina v Schofield: CACD 1993

After the jury’s verdict, a juror asked the bailiff if the jury could have asked a question, and on receiving an affirmative response, the juror went on to say that the jury had not understood the offence of affray and had written a note to that effect. Such a note was found in the jury room, and the court was invited to consider what transpired between the juror and the bailiff, but the argument was rejected on the ground that to give any meaning to that conversation it would be necessary to lift the veil of secrecy from the jury room and enquire what had happened within.

Citations:

(1993) CLR 217

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v BM and Another CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.183499

Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 21 Jul 2004

The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of criminal damage.
Held: International law was to be allowed for in national law. The rule of international law underlying the concept of the international crime of aggression is capable of having effect in domestic law, but not necessarily to create a crime of aggression here. Nevertheless, necessity might afford a defence to the defendants in the light of their beliefs, and the court will have to consider that. However, ‘the question of the legality of the war in Iraq is not therefore a matter which arises in these cases.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham Mr Justice Gibbs His Honour Judge Richard Brown Dl

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1981, [2005] QB 259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 , Criminal Damage Act 1971, International Criminal Court Act 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .
Cited – West Rand Central Gold Mining Company v Rex 1905
The court considered whether international law could form part of the criminal law of England
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘The second proposition urged by Lord Robert Cecil, that international law forms part of the law of England, requires a word . .
Cited – Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney-General for Canada PC 1931
The Board was asked how to identify whether an allegation amounted to a criminal one. Lord Atkin said: ‘It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the . .
Cited – Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.
Cited – In re Piracy jure gentium PC 1934
Charges of piracy were brought against Chinese Nationals who had pursued and attacked a cargo junk. They were indicted in Hong Kong for the crime of piracy and found guilty subject to a question of law: ‘Whether an accused person may be convicted of . .
Cited – Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council CA 1988
The court asked the extent to which international law forms part of the law of this country. Nourse LJ said: ‘For up to two and a half centuries it has been generally accepted amongst English judges and jurists that international law forms part of . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Hutchinson v Newbury Magistrates Court QBD 9-Oct-2000
The appellant’s conviction for criminal damage to a fence at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston was upheld by the Crown Court; and she appealed by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, maintaining that she had acted in order to . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Cited – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .
Cited – Regina v Abdul-Hussain; Regina v Aboud; Regina v Hasan CACD 17-Dec-1998
The law of the defence of duress arising out of threat or circumstances is in need of urgent parliamentary clarification. Appeals were allowed where the defendants hijacked an airplane in order to escape deportation to a hostile country. ‘The . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler CACD 28-Sep-2001
Duress as Defence not closely Defined
The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made . .

Cited by:

Applied – Ayliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Apr-2005
The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that . .
Appeal from – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.199310

Saeed v Greater London Council (Inner London Education Authority): 1985

The plaintiff had been acquitted of assaulting a child at the school. His employers nevertheless brought disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct identical to those which had formed the basis of the previous criminal proceedings. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the disciplinary proceedings were unlawful in contravening the rule against double jeopardy.
Held: Double jeopardy in such a case means the peril of being convicted twice in a court of competent jurisdiction. The disciplinary body is not a court of competent jurisdiction; and it applies a different standard of proof.

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[1985] ICR 637

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Employment

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.181631

Regina (Evans and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office: QBD 23 Oct 2002

The Home Secretary received a request for assistance in a letter of request from a foreign state, and issued orders requiring information from the applicants. They sought access to the letter.
Held: The letter of request is confidential and not itself disclosable. However, justice must also be done for the person the subject of the request. Normally, that requirement could be met by disclosing information as to the nature of the criminal investigation. That would suffice here, but would not always be enough.

Judges:

Kennedy, Pitchers LLJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2002, Gazette 21-Nov-2002

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.178148

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Duckenfield etc: Admn 31 Mar 1999

Private prosecutions had been brought against two retired police officers, D and M, in relation to the Hillsborough disaster; and the Director had refused a request by the officers to take over and discontinue those prosecutions, stating that his policy was to take over a prosecution to discontinue it only where there was clearly no case to answer, or the public interest factors tending against the prosecution clearly outweighed those factors tending in favour, or the prosecution was likely to damage the interests of justice. The police officers sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: The court rejected a challenge by both officers to the lawfulness of the Director’s policy; he had full power to refuse to take over a private prosecution and to discontinue it. The criteria are not the same as for the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It was not wrong for a Police authority to carry out the acts it saw as necessary to maintain and efficient force.
Laws LJ said:’The argument here, at least as originally put forward in M.’s skeleton argument, was that because of his view (referred to in the reasons letter) that private prosecutors are not bound to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report, 1993-94) when deciding whether to institute proceedings, the D.P.P. has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the principles in the Code are irrelevant to his discretion under sections 6(2) and 23(3). But the DPP has nowhere stated that he regards the Code as systematically or generally irrelevant to his power to discontinue. Indeed, as I shall show, there are some aspects of the Code which are reflected in his approach to the question, how his policy should be applied in this case. In truth, however, it could not be right for the DPP to apply across the board the same tests, in particular the ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’ test referred to in the correspondence, in considering whether to take over and discontinue a private prosecution as the Code enjoins Crown Prosecutors to follow in deciding whether to institute or proceed with a prosecution themselves; the consequence would be that the D.P.P. would stop a private prosecution merely on the ground that the case is not one which he would himself proceed with. But that, in my judgment, would amount to an emasculation of section 6(1) and itself be an unlawful policy; and in fairness Mr. Harrison made it clear that he did not submit so much. The very premise of section 6(1) must be that some cases will go to trial which the D.P.P. himself chooses not to prosecute.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

Times 21-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 286, [2000] 1 WLR 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police Act 1996, Criminal Justice Act 1987

Cited by:

Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 9-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to take over and discontinue his private prosecutions arising from public order incidents, saying that the respondent’s policy was unlawful in restricting such prosecutions.
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 14-Nov-2012
The appellant had twice begun private prosecutions only to have them taken over by the CPS and discontinued. He complained that a change in their policy on such interventions interfered with his statutory and constitutional right to bring such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139550

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee: Admn 18 Mar 1999

Application for judicial review of CPS decision on disclosure of evidence before committal.
Held: The court recognised an ongoing duty of disclosure from the time of arrest. At the stage before committal, there are continuing obligations on the prosecutor to make such disclosure as justice and fairness may require in the particular circumstances of the case, that is, where it could reasonably be expected to assist the defence when applying for bail. This will ensure that the defendant enjoys ‘equality of arms’ with the prosecution.
Kennedy LJ said of the 1996 Act: ‘The 1996 Act does not specifically address the period between arrest and committal, and whereas in most cases prosecution disclosure can wait until after committal without jeopardising the defendant’s right to a fair trial the prosecutor must always be alive to the need to make advance disclosure of material of which he is aware (either from his own consideration of the papers or because his attention has been drawn to it by the defence) and which he, as a responsible prosecutor, recognises should be disclosed at an earlier stage. Examples canvassed before us were- (a) previous convictions of a complainant or deceased if that information could reasonably be expected to assist the defence when applying for bail; (b) material which might enable a defendant to make a pre-committal application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process;’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Blofield J

Citations:

[1999] 1 WLR 1950, [1999] EWHC Admin 242, [1999] Cr App R 304, [1999] 2 All ER 737

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Nolan CACD 15-Feb-2002
The defendant was accused of murder. He had been identified by a witness who knew him, but the witness himself was murdered before the trial. The court allowed the prosecutor to read the deceased witness’ statement. Another witness for whom an ID . .
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara Admn 21-Jun-2001
The Director challenged the decision of the magistrates to stay a prosecution of the defendant as an abuse of process. The defendant had been interviewed without a solicitor. He went away to seek legal advice. The solicitor requested a copy of the . .
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: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139506

Hm Attorney General v Gleaves: Admn 9 Mar 1999

The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists.
Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 216

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 24(7), Supreme Court Act 1981 42

Citing:

Cited – Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139480

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Richard Moran, Martin O’Brien and Kevin Oates: Admn 17 Mar 1999

The complainants objected to the court allowing the prosecution to withdraw a case on committal on the basis that the prosecution would now inevitably prefer a voluntary bill of indictment giving them less protection.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 234

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139498

Regina v Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court ex parte Harry Wilson: Admn 1 Feb 1999

The defendant sought renewed leave to apply for judicial review. He complained of the reading of statements at his committal where he had requested that the witness attend to give evidence.
Held: The defendant had been given full opportunity to attend a previous hearing which had heard the full allegations, and even if leave were granted the application would be highly unlikely to succeed.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 88, [1999] EWHC Admin 139

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139352

Regina v Thomas Shanks: Admn 13 Jan 1999

Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 21

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139285

Regina v Liverpool City Magistrates Court ex parte Quantrell: Admn 19 Jan 1999

The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Justices to deal with his formal committal to the Crown court in his absence when he was unwell. The magistrates had distinguished between sections 6(1) and 6(2) as to whether the accused was required to be present.
Held: The distinction was false: ‘when the Act deals in section 4 with the tendering of the evidence before the Justices it is doing more than simply using that expression to refer to a discrete and separate part of the committal proceedings. The overall structure of the Act is using that expression, in my judgement, to refer to committal proceedings as a whole. Even if that is not right it would be wholly artificial to think that Parliament would have consciously made any provision in section 6(2) preventing action in the absence of the accused by simply by omitting any such provision in section 6(2). Particularly in a section 6(2) case the tendering of the evidence, and the consideration of whether the accused should be committed, is part and parcel of a single operation.’

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Collins J

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 41, [1999] Crim LR 734, (1999) 163 JP 420, [1999] 2 Cr App R 24

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 4(4) 6(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139305

Environment Agency v Stanford: Admn 30 Jun 1998

The prosecutor appealed against the decision of magistrates to stay a prosecution as an abuse.
Held: The decision of a prosecutor to prosecute remains his alone. Where no clear representations had been made that if certain works were carried out a prosecution would not follow, and the works were not carried out, the prosecution was not an abuse of process.
Lord Bingham LCJ said: ‘The jurisdiction to stay, as has been repeatedly explained, is one to be exercised with the greatest caution . . The question of whether or not to prosecute is for the prosecutor. Most of the points relied on in support of an argument of abuse are more profitably relied on as mitigation.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Thomas J

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1998] EWHC Admin 690, [1999] ENV LR 286, [1998] COD 373

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(b)

Cited by:

Cited – Coates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138811

Olakunori v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Jul 1998

Establishing identity of defendant with persons listed on previous convictions list.

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 722, [1998] EWHC Admin 723, [1998] COD 443

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Burns CACD 1-Mar-2006
The defendant complained that the court had wrongfully admitted evidence of a previous conviction on the basis only that he shared the name and date of birth of the person convicted. The conviction was used as evidence of his propensity to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138844

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Nigel Andrew Whitehead: Admn 10 Jun 1998

Where the prosecution failed to arrange committal within custody time limits, where it could have done, it had failed to act with due expedition, but a delay until after committal for judicial review application defeated claim.

Citations:

Times 16-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 623

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 22(3)(b)

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138744

Stephen Patrick Bussey v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 5 May 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 485

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed to – Bussey v Director of Public Prosecutions CA 17-Mar-1999
Where there remained a difference between the defence and the prosecution as to the facts on which a sentence was to be based a crown court hearing an appeal against sentence was able to sentence on a basis of different facts then found by the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bussey v Director of Public Prosecutions CA 17-Mar-1999
Where there remained a difference between the defence and the prosecution as to the facts on which a sentence was to be based a crown court hearing an appeal against sentence was able to sentence on a basis of different facts then found by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138606

Regina v Aylesbury Crown Court ex parte Lait: Admn 13 Mar 1998

The defendant sought judicial review of the crown court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to re-open his case even after defence counsel had begun his summing up.
Held: The court ‘did step outside the reasonable bounds of its discretion in giving leave to the prosecution to call further evidence, and then in adjourning the case for re-hearing because of non-availability of Mrs Wright and the time of day.’ and ‘I cannot, in the circumstances of this case, find an obligation in defence counsel to raise the point, if he was going to raise it at all, while the prosecution witness was giving evidence.’ and ‘The further relevant aspect of this case is the need, if the prosecution are correct, for a complete re-hearing. That was going to involve substantial delay and there is an interest in finality in this litigation. I regard that as a relevant factor which distinguishes this case from one where the evidence to be given could be given on the same day and as part of the same trial, though I am not saying that that factor has been the decisive one in this case.’

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 319

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138440

Regina v Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary Ex Parte Atkinson and Another: Admn 5 Feb 1998

The giving of a caution was possible after an inadmissible confession, but wise practice required police officers to obtain an admission on tape first.

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 145

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice Code C

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138266

Regina v Norfolk Stipendary Magistrates ex parte Keable: Admn 29 Jan 1998

A police investigation into an offence not yet committed, did not count as an investigation into that offence for the purposes of setting the start date under the Act.

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 108, [1998] CLR 510

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 1(3)

Cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina v City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper QBD 7-Dec-1999
There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of ‘criminal investigation’ has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138229

Regina v Preston Crown Court ex parte Lancashire County Council: Admn 20 Jan 1998

A parent or person responsible for a child who had been summonsed to appear at the youth court was in a sufficient sense themselves an accused person to be able to apply for a defendant’s costs order after a case is withdrawn.
The court sought to construe the section in a manner wide enough to give it jurisdiction to deal with the defendant.

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 40, [1999] 1 WLR 142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 55, Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 16

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 12-May-2003
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
Held: The making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Children, Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138161

In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Subjiciendum and In the Matter of Bozkurt: Admn 3 Oct 1997

Custody time limits cease to apply once a jury has been sworn.

Judges:

Gage J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 829

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22

Cited by:

Cited – In Re Hickman and Rose (Solicitors) (Wasted Costs Order) (No 10 of 1999) CACD 19-Apr-2000
After a trial was aborted, the solicitors, acting on counsel’s advice made an application for bail under the rules applying to the custody time limits. An unreported case had already decided the point, namely that once the jury had ben sworn, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137774

Harris v Harris: CA 11 Jun 1997

The interests of the family in ancillary relief proceedings had to be postponed to those of the victims of the dishonest husband.

Citations:

Unreported, 11 June 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards CA 27-Jun-2006
The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.244186

Krasniki v The Czech Republic: ECHR 28 Feb 2006

Citations:

[2006] ECHR 176, 51277/99

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.243484

Regina v Barnet Justices ex parte R: QBD 10 Nov 1994

The court accepted, on the basis of Bennett, that the magistrates did not have jurisdiction to consider allegations of abuse based on ‘bad faith’.

Citations:

Unreported, 10 November 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.244673

West Yorkshire Probation Board v Townend: Admn 28 Jul 2005

The Board appealed dismissal by the magistrates of their complaint that the defendant had failed to comply with an order requiring him to report to a relevant officer after his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The defendant argued that no proper evidence had been brought that he had been informed of the relevant appointment.
Held: The letter was not a document which was required to be served under the Magistrates Courts rules. Proof of service was required under s24 of the 1988 Act. Under that section the evidence of posting which had been provided was admissible. The case was remitted.

Judges:

Mr Justice Simon Lady Justice Smith DBE

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1953 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1), Magistrates’ Court Rules 67(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.230112

Regina (Hale) v Southport Justices: QBD 14 Jan 2002

The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed.
Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

Times 29-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.167486

Regina v Stipendiary Magistrate for Norfolk ex parte Dean Taylor: Admn 1 Jul 1997

The prosecutor applied ex parte to the magistrate for an order that he need not disclose certain material to the defendant. Though the hearing was inter partes, the content of the protected material was not shown to the defendant’s solciitor.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 611

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Cited – Regina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft CA 16-Jun-1994
A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is . .

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137556

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Garland J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137504

Regina v York Magistrate Court ex parte Grimes: Admn 12 May 1997

The defendant sought judicial review of the decision of the magistrates to commit her to prison for non-payment of fines. The had found wilful neglect to pay.
Held: The magistrates had erred in thinking that the variability of the defendant’s wage disallowed an attachment order. The committal was quashed and the case remitted for rehearing.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 461, (1997) 161 JPN 794, [1998] BPIR 642, 161 JP 550

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley) 1996
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper . .
Cited – Regina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon Admn 18-Dec-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137406

Barnes v Chief Constable of Durham: Admn 24 Apr 1997

The defendant was prosecuted for a driving offence. No identification parade had been held, and he was identified in the dock at court.
Held: Despite the firmly-rooted hostility to dock identifications in the Crown Court, they are permitted in driving cases in the magistrates’ court.
Popplewell J said: ‘There is no logic in making a distinction in regard to dock identifications between the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court. However it has to be recognised that every day in a magistrates’ court those charged for instance with careless driving, who have made no statement to the police, are entitled to sit back and in the absence of identification to submit that it has not been proven that they were the driver. Such an example is to be found in Jones v Carter [1956] Crim.L.R 275 where an acquittal was directed in a careless driving case where the prosecutor had not proved that the defendant was driving although there had been no cross-examination by the defence as to identity and the case had been conducted on the basis that the defendant who did not testify was driving.
To deal with that it has been customary ever since I can remember for a police officer or other witnesses to be asked, ‘Do you see the driver in court,’ and for him to identify the defendant. Absent such an identification an acquittal may well follow. If in every case where the defendant does not distinctly admit driving there has to be an identification parade, the whole process of justice in a magistrates’ court would be severely impaired. There are of course other ways in which a driver of a car can be identified but what I have just described is the norm. And in Middleton v Rowlett [1954] W.L.R.331 the magistrates refused to allow the prosecution to re-open their case where they had failed to give evidence as to identity and the Divisional Court refused to interfere with this exercise and the magistrates’ discretion. For my part I make no observation on the correctness of the passage that appears in Archbold but in this case I have to look at the facts as they appeared to the magistrates and decide whether on the facts of this case it was plainly unfair to allow a dock identification. I do not so find.’

Judges:

McCowan LJ, Popplewell J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 408, [1997] 2 Cr App R 505, (1998) 162 JP 126

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 – Karia, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Oct-2002
The defendant appealed by case stated against a decision of the Crown Court on appeal rejecting his assertion that he had not been proved to have been driving a car on the occasion when the offences occurred. The court had allowed a dock . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137353

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

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

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Gage J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87815