Category: Criminal Practice

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier: QBD 22 Feb 1996

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

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 34(2)

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79996

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara: QBD 16 Jul 2001

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

Judges:

Rose LJ, Silber J

Citations:

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

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79980

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

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

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79701

Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79678

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

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

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971

Cable et Al v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Feb 1999

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

Judges:

L Wildhaber P

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78815

British Waterways Board v Norman: QBD 11 Nov 1993

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78651

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

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

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78679

Bank of England v Gibson: QBD 9 May 1994

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

Citations:

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

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78155

Averill v United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Jun 2000

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78029

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

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

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Wright and Grigson JJ

Citations:

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

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77964

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

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

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Thomas J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Contempt of Court, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77978

SA and Others, Regina: CACD 15 Feb 2019

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

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 144

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.634332

Regina v Offield: CACD 2002

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

Judges:

Judge LJ, nHunt J and Keith J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1630

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620168

Ex parte Central Independent Television: 1991

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

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 4

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620601

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

Bail conditions only after detention

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

Judges:

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

Citations:

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

Links:

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

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.604212

Regina v Hammond: 1986

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

Judges:

Boreham J

Citations:

(1986) Cr App R 65

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.544348

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

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

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 411

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470924

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461522

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461219

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461006

Regina v Medway: CACD 1976

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

Judges:

Lawson J

Citations:

(1976) 2 Cr App R 85

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.451798

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460963

Regina v Palmer: CACD 2002

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

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2675

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.451797

Regina v Samuel: CA 1988

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

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 58(1)

Cited by:

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 – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445392

Regina v Hall: 1891

On taking an office of trust concerning the public, a person makes himself answerable to the Crown irrespective of who they had been appointed by, and in what way the appointment arose. It is an ‘old principle that where an Act of Parliament creates an offence and prescribes no remedy for it, the offence is indictable at common law.’ Where an offence was not expressly made subject to summary jurisdiction, it could only be tried by a jury.

Citations:

[1891] 1 QB 747

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bowden (T) CACD 24-Feb-1995
The defendant, a maintenance manager, was accused of misconduct in public office. He had caused works to be carried out by other employees of the local authority on premises occupied by a friend when such works were not required under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.414600

Regina v Canale: CACD 1990

The importance given to compliance with the Codes of Practice under PACE for police officers to take contemporaneous notes is to ensure that a suspect’s remarks are accurately recorded and to protect the officer from suggestions that they induced the suspects to confess by improper approaches or promises.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

(1990) 91 Cr App R 1, [1990] 2 All ER 187

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.415964

Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R: 1988

R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined.
Held: R’s request for a writ of mandamus succeeded. Once the parties accepted that the admissibility of the alleged statement was contested, he was entitled to have its admissibility tested as a preliminary issue. When magistrates conducting a summary trial are faced with an objection to the admissibility of evidence under ss 76 and/or 78 of PACE, they are obliged to determine the objections forthwith by holding a trial within a trial (voir dire).
Questions put to an investigating officer to test the admissibility of the evidence were not on their own sufficient to give rise to the need for a voir dire.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1988] QB 1, [1987] 2 All ER 668, (1987) 86 Cr App R 1, [1987] Crim LR 572, [1987] 3 WLR 224

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.416720

Regina v B: CACD 2008

Sir Igor Judge said: ‘No trial Judge should exercise his discretion in a way in which he personally believes may be unreasonable. That is not to say that he will necessarily find every such decision easy. But the mere fact that the Judge could reasonably have reached the opposite conclusion to the one he reached, and that he acknowledges that there were valid arguments that might have caused him to do so, does not begin to provide a basis for a successful appeal.’

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge

Citations:

(2008) EWCA Crim 1144

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – RCPO v C CACD 5-Feb-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process. It was alleged that the defendant solicitor had permitted a relation of his partner to launder the proceeds of a tax fraud. The principal defendant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.396628

John Wilkes v The King: PC 16 Jan 1769

An information for an offence, is a surmise or suggestion upon record, on behalf of the King, to a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, and is to all intents and purposes the King’s suit; and may be filed by tbe Solicitor General, during a vacancy of the office of Attorney General. In such a case, it is not necessary in point of law, to aver upon the record, that the Attorney General’s office was vacant.

Citations:

[1769] EngR 25, (1769) 4 Bro PC 360, (1769) 2 ER 244

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See also – Wilkes v Wood CCP 6-Dec-1763
Entry by Force was Unconstitutional
The plaintiff challenged a warrant of commitment to the Tower of London addressed to John Wilkes by name. The plaintiff sought damages after his property was entered by force on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Held: The case was decided on a . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.374536

Aladesuru v The Queen: PC 1956

Directors of the Standard Bank in Nigeria appealed from a conviction for false accounting. They had appealed to the West African Court of Appeal who said referring to the difference between civil and criminal appeals: ‘This difference has been pointed out by this court times without number and so we have no sympathy for any appellant who still puts up a wrong ground of appeal. Even if we had granted an amendment of the ground of appeal we would not have been disposed to hear arguments on facts . . The first ground of appeal that judgment is against the weight of evidence is no ground of appeal in criminal matters but is an appropriate ground in civil matters where verdicts are to be arrived at by preponderance of evidence. In criminal matters the proper ground of appeal is that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence . . Even if we had granted an amendment of the ground of appeal, we would not have been disposed to hear arguments on facts.’
Held: The appeal failed.
Lord Tucker discussed the possibility of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria setting aside a decision on the facts. He said: ‘It will be observed that the language of the West African Court of Appeal Ordinance follows that of the English Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, under which it has long been established that the appeal is not by way of rehearing as in civil cases on appeals from a judge sitting alone, but is a limited appeal which precludes the court from reviewing the evidence and making its own evaluation thereof. The position is correctly stated at page 346 of the 33rd edition of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice as follows:
‘In order to succeed an appellant must show, in the words of the statute, that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. It is not a sufficient ground of appeal to allege that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. It is also to be observed that an appeal on this ground does not lie as of right but only by leave of the court.”

Judges:

Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1956] AC 49, 39 Cr App R 184

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General for Jersey v O’Brien (Jersey) PC 14-Feb-2006
(Court of Appeal of Jersey) The appellant had been convicted of laundering the proceeds of her husband’s drug trafficking. The Attorney-General now appealed against her successful appeal on sentence and confiscation order. Both she and her husband . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.279057

Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening): CA 8 Mar 2005

The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the VAT on works carried out on his own property. Because of the delay which would ensue and the duty not to tell the other party, they applied ex parte to vacate the trial date.
Held: The court could continue to hear the public law element despite the fact that the parties had resolved the underlying dispute. ‘The issue at the very centre of this appeal is whether s 328 applies to the ordinary conduct of legal proceedings at all. There is also a narrower issue, namely if it does, whether Parliament can be taken, without using clear words to that effect, to have intended to override the important principles underlying legal professional privilege and the strict terms on which lawyers are permitted to have access to documents disclosed in the litigation process. ‘ In implementing the 2001 Directive, the UK had gone beyond what was required. The need to be able to receive legal advice in confidence is a fundamental part of the right to a fair trial: ‘ . . . the proper interpretation of s 328 is that it is not intended to cover or affect the ordinary conduct of litigation by legal professionals. That includes any step taken by them in litigation from the issue of proceedings and the securing of injunctive relief or a freezing order up to its final disposal by judgment. We do not consider that either the European or the United Kingdom legislator can have envisaged that any of these ordinary activities could fall within the concept of ‘becoming concerned in an arrangement which . . . facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property’. On the narrower ground ‘There is nothing in the language of s 328 to suggest that Parliament expressly intended to override legal professional privilege’. Clear language would have been required: ‘even if s 328 does apply to the ordinary conduct of legal proceedings, it does not override legal professional privilege. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2005] 4 All ER 609, [2005] EWCA Civ 226, Times 14-Mar-2005, [2006] 1 WLR 3083

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 328, Council Directive of 4th December 2001 (2001/97/EEC), Council Directive of 10th June 1991 (91/308/EEC), The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Business in the Regulated Sector and Supervisory Authorities) Order 2003 (SI 2003 No 3074), European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Jervis HL 1944
The parties had disputed the terms of an insurance policy. The House considered whether it could hear the case once the dispute had been settled.
Held: There was no remaining dispute for the House to settle. Viscount Simon LC said: ‘My Lords, . .
Cited – P v P (Ancillary Relief: Proceeds of Crime) FD 8-Oct-2003
The parties sought guidance from the court on the circumstances which arose in ancillary relief proceedings where a legal representative came to believe that one party might be holding the proceeds of crime. In the course of ancillary relief . .
Cited – Ainsbury v Millington (Note) HL 1987
There had been a dispute between the parties as to a council house tenancy, but by the time it came before the House, the tenancy had ceased to exist, and the action was academic.
Held: Once the parties have settled their dispute there remains . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Salem HL 3-Mar-1999
The House of Lords has the power to hear a case where the parties have in effect settled and there remains no lis at issue, but the House will not hear such an academic case where no general issue of importance is at stake, or the facts are . .
Cited – Golder v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1975
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Able and Others QBD 28-Apr-1983
The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary ECJ 15-May-1986
The principles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights must be taken into consideration in community law. The principle of effective judicial control laid down in article 6 of Council Directive 76/207, a principle which . .
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 – Ocalan v Turkey ECHR 12-Mar-2003
The applicant had led Kurdish separatists training and leading a gang of armed terrorists. Warrants for his arrest had been taken out in Turkey. He had lived for many years in Syria but then sought political asylum in Greece, Russia and Italy, none . .
Cited – AM and S Europe Ltd v Commission of The European Communities ECJ 18-May-1982
The court set out the rationale for legal professional privilege: ‘Whether it is described as the right of the client or the duty of the lawyer, this principle has nothing to do with the protection or privilege of the lawyer. It springs essentially . .
Cited – Foxley v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jun-2000
A bankrupt was suspected of disposing of his assets to avoid a confiscation order. The trustee in bankruptcy obtained an order for the bankrupt’s post to be diverted to her whilst he was in prison. She opened all post and copied it before forwarding . .
Cited – S v Switzerland ECHR 28-Nov-1991
Access to legal advice on a private and confidential basis is a fundamental principle not lightly to be interfered with. Fair trial rights may require communications with lawyers to be protected, and that confidential communications between lawyers . .
Cited – Campbell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1992
The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that ‘every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) HL 11-Nov-2004
The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – MD Foods v Baines and others; Associated Dairies Ltd v Baines and Others HL 27-Feb-1997
The appellant dairy sold milk to the defendant roundsmen, each agreeing not to sell milk by retail to the others customers. The defendant began to buy his milk elsewhere, and claimed the agreement should have been registered as a restrictive trade . .
Cited – Regina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis and Francis HL 1989
The police had obtained an ex parte order for the production of files from a firm of solicitors relating to financial transactions of one of their clients. The police believed that the client had been provided with money to purchase property by an . .

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 – Burkle Holdings Ltd v Laing TCC 23-Mar-2005
The parties had each instructed the same solicitor, but now disputed the entitlement of the other to see documents held by the solicitor. . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Cited – Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
Cited – GH, Regina v SC 22-Apr-2015
Appeal against conviction for entering into an arrangement for the retention of criminal funds. The defendant said that at the time of the arrangement there were not yet any criminal funds in existence. A had set up websites intending to con . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.223272

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. The court gave guidance on the practice to be followed, but it was not correct for the details of the request to be released. The application failed.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘The warrant needs to be drafted with sufficient precision to enable both those who execute it and those whose property is affected by it to know whether any individual document or class of document falls within it. If that is done it seems to me that the specifically required will be no less than would be required for a notice under section 2(3) were it practicable to serve such a notice and although the terms of the warrant may be wide it will not simply be fishing if it is directed to support an investigation which has apparent merit.’
Crane J said: ‘a warrant should be capable of being understood by those carrying out the search and by those whose premises are being searched without reference to any other document.’
‘The remedy which is available to a person or persons affected by a warrant is to seek judicial review. It is an adequate remedy because the statutory provisions have to be read in the light of those articles of the European Convention which are now part of English law. In fact, . . if the statutory provisions are satisfied the requirements of article 8 of the Convention will also be satisfied, and at least since the implementation of the Human Rights Act an application for judicial review is not bound to fail if, for example, the applicant cannot show that the Director’s decision to seek a warrant in a particular form was irrational, but in deciding whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review the High Court will always bear in mind that the seizure of documents pursuant to a warrant is an investigative step, perhaps best reconsidered either at or even after the trial.
(10) Often it may not be appropriate, even after the warrant has been executed, to disclose to the person affected or his legal representatives all of the material laid before the district judge because to do so might alert others or frustrate the purposes of the overall inquiry, but the person affected has a right to be satisfied as to the legality of the procedure which led to the execution of the warrant, and if he or his representatives do ask to see what was laid before the district judge and to be told about what happened at the hearing, there should, so far as possible, be an accommodating response to that request. It is not sufficient to say that the applicant has been adequately protected because discretion has been exercised first by the Director and then by the district judge. In order to respond to the request of an applicant it may be that permission for disclosure has to be sought from an investigating authority abroad, and/or that what was produced or said to the district judge can only be disclosed in an edited form, but judicial control by way of judicial review cannot operate effectively unless the person or persons affected are put in a position to take meaningful advice, and if so advised to seek relief from the court. Furthermore it is no answer to say that there is no general duty of disclosure in proceedings for judicial review.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1626 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1316

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Williams v Somerfield 1972
The court emphasised that a search warrant is a potentially serious invasion of the liberty of the subject, and a gross invasion of privacy. Lord Widgery also drew the distinction between authorising the obtaining of material as permitted by . .
Cited – ex parte Adegbesan 1987
The court emphasised the need for specificity in any notice given under section 9 of the 1984 Act. . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Serious Fraud Office ex parte KM and others 7-Apr-1998
A request for assistance came from the United States pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty of 2nd December 1996. Pill LJ, giving the first judgment stressed the need for candour and full disclosure when a warrant is being sought, quoting . .
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 – 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 . .
Approved – Regina v Southwark Crown Court and Another, Ex Parte Sorsky and Defries QBD 21-Jul-1995
A search warrant should be issued on behalf of a foreign court only after a fullest consideration of the law, but it could be used to allow removal of material as evidence of foreign offences. The court heard an application to a Crown Court judge . .
Cited – Peck v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Jan-2003
peck_ukECHR2003
The claimant had been filmed by CCTV. He had, after attempting suicide, left home with a knife, been arrested by the police and disarmed, but then sent home without charge. The CCTV film was used on several occasions to advertise the effectiveness . .
Cited – Abacha, Bagudu v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Federal Republic of Nigeria Interested Party Admn 18-Oct-2001
Attempts were being made by the Federal Government of Nigeria to recover moneys alleged to have been taken fraudulently from the state. They sought assistance from the UK, and the claimants sought details of that request. The statute provided that . .
Cited – Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Sep-1999
The United Kingdom’s ban on homosexuals within the armed forces was a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life. Applicants had also been denied an effective remedy under the Convention. The investigations into . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Regina v Evans and Lord Admn 2002
The United States, in connection with the investigation of an alleged fraud, sought the assistance of the Secretary of State to obtain evidence and information from members of an English firm of accountants, who were not themselves under suspicion. . .
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office Admn 2002
There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written . .
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (Regina on the Application of ) v Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to disclose documents obtained by it from them during an investigation.
Held: The decisions to disclose material to the DoH were ‘in accordance with law’ within the meaning . .
Cited – Buck v Germany ECHR 28-Apr-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; No separate issue under Art. 6; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA 8-Mar-2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
Cited – Global Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, International

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229058

Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 28 Jul 2006

Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The appeal failed. A valid order could be used when necessary even if for purposes not foreseen when the order was made. Certain kinds of demonstrations had specific statutory protections, but it was not for the courts to extend those classes.

Judges:

Wall LJ, Wilson LJ, Hallett LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1118, Times 15-Aug-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 3374, [2007] 2 All ER 297

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ezelin v France ECHR 26-Apr-1991
The free speech of protesters should not be curtailed simply because of the unlawful behaviour of one or two individuals. The court considered that ‘that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly – in this instance a demonstration that had not . .
Cited – Sierny v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Feb-2006
An authorisation for a dispersal order under the Act must specify, if only in summary form, the grounds upon which it is made. A mere statement that an officer had grounds for making an authorisation was not sufficient. Specification of the grounds . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Cited – Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jul-1999
The police had arrested three peaceful but vociferous preachers when some members of a crowd gathered round them threatened hostility.
Held: Freedom of speech means nothing unless it includes the freedom to be irritating, contentious, . .
Cited – Stankov And The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v Bulgaria ECHR 2-Oct-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection dismissed; Violation of Art. 11; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses (domestic . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the Application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary and others CA 8-Dec-2004
The claimant had been in a bus taking her and others to an intended demonstration. The police feared breaches of the peace, and stopped the bus, and ordered the driver to return to London, and escorted it to ensure it did not stop.
Held: The . .
Appeal from – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243998

Regina v Goldstone: CACD 2005

The Court rejected a submission that the questions as to disclosure raised before it fell outside the ambit of a preparatory hearing.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252540

Callis v Gunn: CCA 1964

Evidence obtained by false representations, threats and bribes by the police may be excluded at the discretion of the judge. For voluntariness to be satisfactorily proved, proof must be provided to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Lord Parker of Waddington LCJ said: ‘(It is) a fundamental principle of law that no answer to a question and no statement is admissible unless it is shown by the prosecution not to have been obtained in an oppressive manner and to have been voluntary in the sense that it has not been obtained by threats or inducements.’ and ‘[A]s is well known, in every criminal case a judge has a discretion to disallow evidence, even if in law relevant and therefore admissible, if admissibility would operate unfairly against a defendant. I would add that in considering whether admissibility would operate unfairly against a defendant one would certainly consider whether it had been obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused person. That is the general principle.’

Judges:

Lord Parker of Waddington LCJ

Citations:

[1964] 1 QB 495, (1963) 48 Cr App R 36, [1963] 3 WLR 931

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250468

In the matter of B: CACD 2006

The court recommended reliance on the good sense of juries: ‘There is a feature of our trial system which is sometimes overlooked or taken for granted. The collective experience of this constitution as well as the previous constitution of the court, both when we were in practice at the Bar and judicially, has demonstrated to us time and time again, that juries up and down the country have a passionate and profound belief in, and a commitment to, the right of a defendant to be given a fair trial. They know that it is integral to their responsibility. It is, when all is said and done, their birthright; it is shared by each one of them with the defendant. They guard it faithfully. The integrity of the jury is an essential feature of our trial process. Juries follow the directions which the judge will give them to focus exclusively on the evidence and to ignore anything they may have heard or read out of court. No doubt in this case Butterfield J will give appropriate directions, tailor-made to the individual facts in the light of any trial post the sentencing hearing, after hearing submissions from counsel for the defendants. We cannot too strongly emphasise that the jury will follow them, not only because they will loyally abide by the directions of law which they will be given by the judge, but also because the directions themselves will appeal directly to their own instinctive and fundamental belief in the need for the trial process to be fair.’

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2692

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247656

Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another: 2006

The Respondents applied to strike out the claim under the Act on grounds including that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and was an abuse of process.
Held: The application was refused.

Judges:

Dobbs J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1906

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.248437

Jespers v Belgium: ECHR 1981

ECHR (Commission) Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention
(a) A virulent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adversely affect the fairness of a trial and involve the State’s responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State’s organs.
(b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor’s office to include in the file and communicate to the defence certain relevant documents which are in its possession (Complaint declared admissible).
Article 26 of the Convention :
(a) Where it is alleged that the members of the jury could have been particularly open to influence by a press campaign concerning the accused, an application for the case to be referred to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion (art. 542 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) constitutes a remedv which has to be exhausted.
(b) Where it is alleged that certain relevant documents have neither been included in the criminal file nor communicated to the defence by the public prosecutor’s office, a request for the review of the trial (art . 443, para. 3 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a remedy the preliminary exhaustion of which is required.

Citations:

[1981] 27 DR 61, (1983) 5 EHRR 305, 8403/78

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 26

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – David McHugh, Regina v CACD 20-Jun-2003
. .
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 – Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary CACD 22-Nov-2002
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable.
Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243371

Regina v Jackson: 1993

(Supreme Court of Canada) McLachlin J: ‘It is true that the trial judge charged the jury clearly and correctly on the mental state required to find Davy guilty of murder. It is also true that the jury found Davy guilty of murder. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court of Appeal that one cannot be satisfied the verdict is just, given the failure of the trial judge to set out the basis for convicting Davy of manslaughter under ss. 21(1) and 21(2) [of the Criminal Code] and the absence of any instruction that a party may be guilty of manslaughter even though the perpetrator is guilty of murder.’

Judges:

McLachlin J

Citations:

[1993] 4 SCR 573

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243353

Muir v HM Advocate: 1933

The jury in a murder trial had not been directed on the possible verdict of culpable homicide on the ground of diminished responsibility.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed. Lord Sands said: ‘A brutal crime had been committed, and a measure of mental weakness might have been regarded from quite a different angle if the jury were aware that its affirmance did not involve complete acquittal.’

Judges:

Lord Sands

Citations:

1933 JC 46

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243356

Gilbert v The Queen: 2000

(High Court of Australia) Gilbert was tried for murder. The judge directed the jury that manslaughter was not an alternative verdict. The jury, correctly directed on the ingredients of murder, convicted.
Held: The court was aksed whether this was a substantial miscarriage of justice. Gleeson CJ and Gummow J recognised the difficulty of knowing whether a misdirection is advantageous to one party or the other and held that while it could, as a general rule, be assumed that juries understand and follow judicial directions, it need not be assumed that juries were unaffected by matters of possible prejudice when making their decisions. An appellate court should not assume that juries adopted a mechanistic approach to the task of fact-finding, oblivious of the consequences of their conclusion: ‘The system of criminal justice, as administered by appellate courts, requires the assumption, that, as a general rule, juries understand, and follow, the directions they are given by trial judges. It does not involve the assumption that their decision-making is unaffected by matters of possible prejudice.’
Callinan J recognised that a jury room might not be a place of undeviating intellectual and logical rigour, and concluded: ‘The appellant was entitled to a trial at which directions according to law were given. It is contrary to human experience that in situations in which a choice of decisions may be made, what is chosen will be unaffected by the variety of the choices offered, particularly when, as here, a particular choice was not the only or inevitable choice.’
McHugh J (dissenting) said that the verdict of a properly directed jury should be respected: ‘The argument for the appellant is a claim that this Court should proceed on one of two bases, each of which necessarily involves an assumption that, if manslaughter had been left as an issue, the jury might have disregarded their sworn duty to give a verdict in accordance with the evidence. The first assumption is that, if manslaughter had been left, the jury might have convicted of manslaughter even though they knew, because of the trial judge’s directions, that the appellant was guilty of murder. The second assumption is that the jurors were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew that his brother intended to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm on Linsley, that they knew therefore that he was not guilty of murder, but that they nevertheless convicted him of murder rather than acquit him and see him go free. In my respectful opinion, as a matter of legal policy, no court of justice can entertain either assumption.
The criminal trial on indictment proceeds on the assumption that jurors are true to their oath, that, in the quaint words of the ancient oath, they hearken to the evidence and that they obey the trial judge’s directions. On that assumption, which I regard as fundamental to the criminal jury trial, the common law countries have staked a great deal. If it was rejected or disregarded, no one – accused, trial judge or member of the public – could have any confidence in any verdict of a criminal jury or in the criminal justice system whenever it involves a jury trial. If it was rejected or disregarded, the pursuit of justice through the jury system would be as much a charade as the show trial of any totalitarian state. Put bluntly, unless we act on the assumption that criminal juries act on the evidence and in accordance with the directions of the trial judge, there is no point in having criminal jury trials.’
Hayne J (dissenting): ‘Nor does the conclusion which I have reached depend upon some judicial assessment of what was acknowledged to be a strong case against the appellant. It is a conclusion which depends entirely upon giving due weight to the verdict of the jury in light of what they were told by the judge and assuming (there being no basis for suggesting otherwise) that they did their duty conscientiously.
The trial to which the appellant was entitled was a trial according to law. There were two questions for the Court of Appeal. First, was there a trial according to law (and all agreed that there was not). Second, and no less important, was the question whether a substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. That second question is not concluded by pointing to the fact that there was a misdirection and that there was, therefore, not a trial according to law. The existence of the proviso denies that the fact of misdirection will, in every case, require an order for retrial. Nor can this second question be answered by making an assumption that the jury might have chosen to disregard what they were told by the judge. Such an assumption is unwarranted. It is an assumption which suggests that emotion (whether induced by the eloquence of counsel or otherwise) might have supplanted the collective common sense and careful reasoning that jurors bring to bear upon a difficult task. It is an assumption which, if effect is given to it, turns the judge’s charge to a jury into a ritual incantation which appellate courts must examine for formal correctness but which appellate courts are free (if not bound) to assume a jury may have disregarded.’

Judges:

Callinan J, Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, McHugh and Hayne JJ

Citations:

(2000) 201 CLR 414

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Cited – Mraz v The Queen 1995
(High Court of Australia) Fullagar J: ‘A jury which would hesitate to convict of murder may be only too glad to take a middle course which is offered to them.’ . .

Cited by:

Explained – Gillard v The Queen 2003
(High Court of Australia) Hayne J explained the effect of the majority decision in Gilbert: ‘In Gilbert, a majority of the Court concluded that if manslaughter should have been, but was not, left to a jury as an available verdict on the appellant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243348

Rex v Parrott: 1913

Phillimore J considered the possibility of allowing a conviction for a lesser offence than that charged and said: ‘There may be cases where, in the interests of the prisoner, a judge ought to do so; there are certainly many cases where the interests of justice are not met unless it is pointed out to the Jury that they may convict of a lesser offence, or, thinking it a case of ‘neck or nothing’, they may acquit altogether.’

Judges:

Phillimore J

Citations:

(1913) 8 Cr App R 186

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Fairbanks CACD 1986
The defendant complained that the judge had not left an alternate verdict of careless driving to the jury where he had been charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Mustill LJ said: . .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243339

Pemble v The Queen: 1971

(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ: ‘Whatever course counsel may see fit to take, no doubt bona fide but for tactical reasons in what he considers the best interest of his client, the trial judge must be astute to secure for the accused a fair trial according to law. This involves, in my opinion, an adequate direction both as to the law and the possible use of the relevant facts upon any matter upon which the jury could in the circumstances of the case upon the material before them find or base a verdict in whole or in part . .
Here, counsel for the defence did not merely not rely on the matters now sought to be raised; he abandoned them and expressly confined the defence to the matters he did raise. However, in my opinion, this course did not relieve the trial judge of the duty to put to the jury with adequate assistance any matters on which the jury, upon the evidence, could find for the accused.’

Judges:

Barwick CJ

Citations:

(1971) 124 CLR 107

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243349

Gillard v The Queen: 2003

(High Court of Australia) Hayne J explained the effect of the majority decision in Gilbert: ‘In Gilbert, a majority of the Court concluded that if manslaughter should have been, but was not, left to a jury as an available verdict on the appellant’s trial for murder, the verdict of guilty of murder did not preclude the possibility that the jury may have failed to apply the instructions they were given. No party in this appeal sought to reopen the decision in Gilbert. It follows from what was decided in Gilbert that, in deciding here whether no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred and thus, whether the proviso to s353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act applies, account may not be taken of the findings implicit in the jury’s verdicts at the appellant’s trial. It must be assumed that the jury may have chosen to disregard the instructions they were given, and convict the appellant of murder and attempted murder, rather than return verdicts of not guilty. Once it is accepted that the jury may have disregarded the instructions they were given, it is not permissible to reason, as the respondent submitted, from the fact that the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three counts to the conclusion that the jury must therefore be taken to have applied the trial judge’s instructions. Once it is said, as it was in Gilbert, that the jury may have disregarded the instructions they were given, it cannot be said that some levels of disobedience may be less probable than others.’
Kirby J: ‘Having secured, but lost, the advantages of the dichotomy which he urged at his trial, the appellant now wants another trial with a further chance to contest the indictment under new rules. It is easy to feel a sense of distaste about allowing such a course to succeed.’

Judges:

Kirby J

Citations:

(2003) 219 CLR 1

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Explained – Gilbert v The Queen 2000
(High Court of Australia) Gilbert was tried for murder. The judge directed the jury that manslaughter was not an alternative verdict. The jury, correctly directed on the ingredients of murder, convicted.
Held: The court was aksed whether this . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243352

Regina v Porritt: CCA 1961

Ashworth J said: ‘As has already been said, the issue of manslaughter was not raised at the trial, but there is ample authority for the view that notwithstanding the fact that a particular issue is not raised by the defence, it is incumbent upon the judge trying the case, if the evidence justifies it, to leave that issue to the jury.’

Judges:

Ashworth J

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 1372, [1961] 3 All ER 463, (1961) 45 Cr App Rep 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Bullard v The Queen PC 1957
The question was whether there was evidence on which the jury could have found a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation rather than the verdict of murder which had been returned.
Held: There is naturally a tendency for an appellate . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243338

Keeble v United States: 1971

(US Supreme Court) Brennan J said: ‘Moreover, it is no answer to petitioner’s demand for a jury instruction on a lesser offense to argue that a defendant may be better off without such an instruction. True, if the prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged, and if no lesser offense instruction is offered, the jury must, as a theoretical matter, return a verdict of acquittal. But a defendant is entitled to a lesser offense instruction – in this context or any other – precisely because he should not be exposed to the substantial risk that the jury’s practice will diverge from theory. Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defendant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction. In the case before us, for example, an intent to commit serious bodily injury is a necessary element of the crime with which petitioner was charged, but not of the crime of simple assault. Since the nature of petitioner’s intent was very much in dispute at trial, the jury could rationally have convicted him of simple assault if that option had been presented. But the jury was presented with only two options: convicting the defendant of assault with intent to commit great bodily injury, or acquitting him outright. We cannot say that the availability of a third option – convicting the defendant of simple assault – could not have resulted in a different verdict.’

Judges:

Brennan J

Citations:

(1971) 412 US 205

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243350

Scott v The Queen: PC 1989

The Board was asked whether sworn depositions of two deceased witnesses should have been admitted.
Held: A warning should be given when admitting identification involving communications between spouses. A conviction based on uncorroborated evidence should be sustained in absence of a warning of the danger of a mistaken identification only in most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘if convictions are to be allowed upon uncorroborated identification evidence there must be a strict insistence upon a judge giving a clear warning of the danger of a mistaken identification which the jury must consider before arriving at their verdict and that it would only be in the most exceptional circumstances that a conviction based on uncorrroborated identification evidence should be sustained in the absence of such a warning.’
and ‘The mere fact that the deponent will not be available for cross-examination is obviously an insufficient ground for excluding the deposition for that is a feature common to the admission of all depositions which must have been contemplated and accepted by the legislature when it gave statutory sanction to their admission in evidence. . . It will of course be necessary in every case to warn the jury that they have not had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the deponent tested in cross-examination and to take that into consideration when considering how far they can safely rely on the evidence in the deposition. No doubt in many cases it will be appropriate for a judge to develop this warning by pointing out particular features of the evidence in the deposition which conflict with other evidence and which could have been explored in cross-examination: but no rules can usefully be laid down to control the detail to which a judge should descend in the individual case’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1989] AC 1242, [1989] 2 All ER 305, (1989) 89 Cr App R 153, [1989] 2 WLR 924

Cited by:

Cited – Delroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.242118

Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte The Telegraph Plc: CACD 1993

The court considered the effect of a jury trial in balancing pre-trial prejudicial publicity. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘In determining whether publication of matter would cause a substantial risk of prejudice to a future trial, a court should credit the jury with the will and ability to abide by a judge’s direction to decide the case only on the evidence before them. The court should also bear in mind that the staying power and detail of publicity, even in cases of notoriety, are limited and the nature of a trial is to focus the jury’s minds on the evidence put before them rather than on matters outside the courtroom.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

(1994) 98 Cr App R 91, [1993] 1 WLR 980

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kray CACD 1969
Ronald Kray had been convicted of murder on 4th March 1969, and on 15th April 1969 he and a number of others were facing a second indictment charging them with murder and other offences. His counsel sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
Cited – Sarker, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2018
The defendant was to face trial under the 2006 Act. He applied for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the reporting of the proceedings on the grounds that knowledge by the jury of the inquiry and police investigation would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.238821

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 untruthful.
Held: What was evidence in such circumstances was not a matter of law but of fact. Names which are very uncommon when fully matched to a birth date will be more readily relied upon than very common names with a partial date match. In this case, the match on the full name and date of birth together were capable of establishing the defendant as the person convicted. The judge should then have directed the jury to consider whether this was established conclusively, but his failure did not affect the outcome in this case.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Stanley Burton J, Hedley J

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2006

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .
Cited – Regina v Derwentside Justices, Ex parte Heaviside 1996
Establishing whether previous convictions listed were those of the defendant. . .
Cited – Olakunori v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jul-1998
Establishing identity of defendant with persons listed on previous convictions list. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240168

Regina v McNeill: CANI 1993

It is a basic principle that justice must be done in public, for all to see and hear, and all communications between counsel and judge should wherever possible be made in open court.

Citations:

[1993] NI 43

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) (Rogan) CANI 2001
The court discussed the need to take notes of meetings in chambers between the judge and counsel. The court set out four principles to be applied: ‘1. There should be freedom of access for counsel to judges, but that does not mean freedom to discuss . .
Cited – Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005) CANI 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.234987

Williams v Somerfield: 1972

The court emphasised that a search warrant is a potentially serious invasion of the liberty of the subject, and a gross invasion of privacy. Lord Widgery also drew the distinction between authorising the obtaining of material as permitted by statute, and ‘a fishing expedition in the hope of finding some material upon which the charge can be hung’.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 QB 512

Statutes:

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230383

Regina v Selvey: HL 1970

A defendant was not to be asked about any previous convictions, unless he had ‘lost his shield’ and incurred liability to such cross-examination by putting his own character in issue, either by putting questions or giving evidence with a view to establish his good character or if he attacked the character of the prosecution witnesses.
Viscount Dilhorne set out the following propositions: ‘(a) The words of the statute must be given their ordinary natural meaning;
(b) The section permits cross-examination of the accused as to the character, both when imputations on the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses are cast to show their unreliability as witnesses independently of the evidence given by them and also when the casting of imputations is necessary to enable the accused to establish his defence;
(c) In rape cases the accused can allege consent without placing himself in peril of cross-examination;
(d) If what is said amounts in reality to no more than a denial of the charge, expressed, it may be, in emphatic language, it should not be regarded as coming within the section.’

Judges:

Viscount Dilhorne

Citations:

[1970] AC 304, (1968) 52 Cr App R 443

Statutes:

Criminal Evidence Act 1898 1(f)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Becouarn HL 28-Jul-2005
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35.
Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does . .
Cited – Regina v O CACD 25-Sep-1996
The defendants appealed their convictions for assault. They complained that the judge had wrongly allowed one defendant to be cross examined as to her previous convictions, and that this had undermined the second defendant also.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.229099

Fuller v State: 1995

(Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) The court gave guidance on the need to give proper directions on identification evidence to accord with Turnbull: ‘We are concerned about the repeated failures of trial judges to instruct juries properly on the Turnbull principles when they deal with the issue of identification. Great care should be taken in identifying to the jury all the relevant criteria. Each factor or question should be separately identified and when a factor is identified all the evidence in relation thereto should be drawn to the jury’s attention to enable them not only to understand the evidence properly but also to make a true and proper determination of the issues in question. This must be done before the trial judge goes on to deal with another factor. It is not sufficient merely to read to them the factors set out in Turnbull’s case and at a later time to read to them the evidence of the witnesses. That is not a proper summing-up. The jury have heard all the evidence in the case when the witnesses testified. It will not assist them if the evidence is merely repeated to them. What they require from the judge in the final round is his assistance in identifying, applying and assessing the evidence in relation to each direction of law which the trial judge is required to give to them and also in relation to the issues that arise for their determination.’

Judges:

Ibrahim JA

Citations:

(1995) 52 WIR 424

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

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

Cited by:

Cited – Langford and Another v The State PC 11-May-2005
(Dominica) The appellants appealed convictions for together having kicked a man to death. They said the convictions were founded on unreliable identification evidence.
Held: The judge had made several misdirections, as to the reliability of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.228787

Chitambala v The Queen: 1961

Clayden ACJ said: ‘In any criminal trial the accused has the right to elect not to give evidence at the conclusion of the Crown case. To regard evidence given by him on the question of the admissibility as evidence in the trial itself would mean either that he must be deprived of that right if he wishes properly to contest the admissibility of a statement, or that, to preserve that right, he must abandon another right in a fair trial, the right to prevent inadmissible statements being led in evidence against him . . To me it seems clear that deprivation of rights in this manner, and the changing of a trial of admissibility into a full investigation of the merits, cannot be part of a fair criminal trial.’

Judges:

Clayden AFCJ

Citations:

[1961] R and N 166

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Approved – Wong Kam-Ming v The Queen PC 20-Dec-1978
The voir dire system allows a defendant to give his evidence on the limited issues surrounding the circumstances under which his statement was made as to the admissibility of the confession, without infringing his right to elect not to give evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224424

Regina v Bass: CCA 1953

The court considered how to deal with the admission of a statement where the defendant contested its admissibility. Here the defendant said he had not been cautioned before the interview.
Held: It was within the discretion of the judge to admit the interview ‘It is to be observed, as this court pointed out in Rex v Murray [1951] 1 KB 391, that while it is for the presiding judge to rule whether a statement is admissible, it is for the jury to determine the weight to be given to it if he admits it, and thus, when a statement has been admitted by the judge, he should direct the jury to apply to their consideration of it the principle as stated by Lord Sumner, and he should further tell them that if they are not satisfied that it was made voluntarily, they should give it no weight at all and disregard it.’
Byrne J said: ‘This court has observed that police officers nearly always deny that they have collaborated in the making of notes, and we cannot help wondering why they are the only class of society who do not collaborate in such a matter. It seems to us that nothing could be more natural or proper when two persons have been present at an interview with a third person than that they should afterwards make sure that they have a correct version of what was said. Collaboration would appear to be a better explanation of almost identical notes than the possession of a superhuman memory.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ, Byrne and Parker JJ

Citations:

[1953] 1 QB 680, (1953) 17 Cr App R 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Bally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Cited – Regina v Skinner CACD 6-Dec-1993
Witnesses should not rehearse their evidence together before going into court. Farquharson LJ said: ‘It has certainly been permissible, since Lord Goddard’s time, for officers to confer together in the making up of their notebooks immediately after . .
Cited – Saunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224426

Chalmers v HM Advocate: HCJ 1954

Where a defendant failed to prevent a statement being admitted in evidence, and sought to be able to challenge it again before the jury, this was a situation where logic must yield, since the jury cannot be asked to accept as an item of evidence a statement made by an accused, while being prevented from considering the circumstances under which it was made. So the jury must be able to take account of those circumstances in deciding what weight and value to attach to the confession.
The law must reconcile two principles: (1) that no accused person is bound to incriminate himself, and (2) that what an accused person says is admissible evidence against him, provided he says it freely and voluntarily.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Thomson

Citations:

1954 JC 66

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution.
Held: The admission of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224425

Moevao v Department of Labour: 1980

(New Zealand) Richardson J said: ‘The justification for staying a prosecution is that the court is obliged to take that extreme step in order to protect its own processes from abuse. It does so in order to prevent the criminal processes from being used for purposes alien to the administration of criminal justice under law. It may intervene in this way if it concludes from the conduct of the prosecutor in relation to the prosecution that the court processes are being employed for ulterior purposes or in such a way (for example, through multiple or successive proceedings) as to cause improper vexation and oppression. The yardstick is not simply fairness to the particular accused. It is not whether the initiation and continuation of the particular process seems in the uncertain circumstances to be unfair to him. That may be an important consideration. But the focus is on the misuse of the court process by those responsible for the law enforcement. It is whether the continuation of the prosecution is inconsistent with the recognised purposes of the administration of criminal justice and so constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[1980] 1 NZLR 464

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225278

Rex v Murray: 1951

Where the judge decides that the confession is to be given in evidence, if the defendant’s counsel wishes, the circumstances in which it was obtained will again be explored in evidence before the jury so that they can decide what weight or value to attach to it. Lord Goddard: ‘The recorder was wrong in the course which he took. It was quite right for him to hear evidence in the absence of the jury and to decide on the admissibility of the confession; and, since he could find nothing in the evidence to cause him to think that the confession had been improperly obtained, to admit it. But its weight and value were matters for the jury, and in considering such matters they were entitled to take into account the opinion which they had formed on the way in which it had been obtained. [Counsel for the defence] was perfectly entitled to cross-examine the police again in the presence of the jury as to the circumstances in which the confession was obtained, and to try again to show that it had been obtained by means of a promise or favour. If he could have persuaded the jury of that, he was entitled to say to them: ‘You ought to disregard the confession because its weight is a matter for you’ . . It has always, as far as this court is aware, been the right of counsel for the defence to cross-examine again the witnesses who have already given evidence in the absence of the jury; for if he can induce the jury to think that the confession was obtained through some threat or promise, its value will be enormously weakened. The weight and value of the evidence are always matters for the jury.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1951] 1 KB 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224422

In re Sagger (Confiscation order: Delay): CA 24 Feb 2005

The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking and made subject to a confiscation order. Several years later the Commissioners sought a further confiscation order. He appealed the order, saying that it had infringed his right of a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Held: Where the state reserved to itself a continuing right to make a confiscation order, the reasonable time requirement applied throughout that period. The statute made it clear that the fixing of an amount left open without limitation of time, the possibility of a reassessment of the amount payable. The statute itself required the court to satisfy itself that there had been no undue delay. The reasonable time rights were engaged. A section 16 certificate allowing the matters to be re-opened would be issued so that the court could look again at all issues including whether the reasonable time requirement had in fact been infringed by the delay.

Judges:

Mummery, Rix, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223985

Joshua v The Queen: PC 1955

The Board of the Privy Council considered the possibility of a judge directing a jury to find guilt.
Held: In a jury trial the judge has no fact finding role
Lord Oaksey said: ‘On the second question their Lordships are of opinion that it was for the judge to direct the jury as to the elements of the crime of effecting a public mischief (assuming that such a crime exists) and to direct them on the facts if he thought that there was evidence to go to the jury, and it was for the jury to find whether the appellant was guilty upon those facts. It was a misdirection to tell the jury as a matter of law that they must convict the appellant if they found that he had spoken the words alleged. To do so was, in their Lordships’ opinion, to usurp the function of the jury . . It is a general principle of British law that on a trial by jury it is for the judge to direct the jury on the law and in so far as he thinks necessary on the facts, but the jury, whilst they must take the law from the judge, are the sole judges on the facts . .’

Judges:

Lord Oaksey

Citations:

[1955] AC 121, [1955] 1 All ER 22

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.222702

California v Green: 1970

(US Supreme Court) There was no violation of the Sixth Amendment when the defendant was convicted of supplying marijuana on the basis of pre-trial statements of a witness who gave evidence at the trial and who was subject to full and effective cross-examination.

Citations:

(1970) 399 US 149

Jurisdiction:

United States

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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.222102

Regina v Weaver and Weaver: 1967

Where some prejudice to the defendant or some matter which is prejudicial to the defendant has been admitted in evidence through inadvertence, the jury may be discharged, but need not always be according to the circumstances.

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 353, (1967) 51 Cr App R

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 – Hounsham and Others, Regina v CACD 26-May-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for having staged motor accidents to support false insurance claims. They said that the insurance companies had contributed to the costs of the investigation by the police.
Held: It might have been most . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200286

Mears v Regina: PC 1993

The prosecution case relied upon the evidence of a woman with whom the accused cohabited. The prosecution case was that the accused had told the woman that he had killed the victim in a particular way. The defendant denied killing the victim and pathological evidence was called that suggested that the victim died in circumstances different from that described by the woman in whom the defendant confided in. After retiring, the jury returned to court and informed the judge that they had a problem relating to the evidence. The trial judge did not ascertain the problem the jury were experiencing but rather restated the evidence. The defendant was convicted. The conviction was appealed. The Board considered whether the summing up was fair to the defendant.
Held: The summing up must be looked at as a whole.
Lord Lane said: ‘In rejecting the defendants submission that the comments of the judge were unfairly weighted against him, the court asked themselves whether the comments amounted to a usurpation of the jury’s function. In the view of their Lordships it is difficult to see how a judge can usurp the jury’s function short of withdrawing in terms an issue from the jury’s consideration. In other words this was to use a test which by present day standards is too favourable to the prosecution. Comments which fall short of such a usurpation may nevertheless be so weighted against the defendant at trial as to leave the jury little real choice other than to comply with what are obviously the judge’s views or wishes.’
and ‘The Court of Appeal took the view that the trial judge was not putting forward an unfair or unbalanced picture of the facts as he saw them. In rejecting the defendant’s submission that the comments of the judge were unfairly weighted against him, the court asked themselves whether the comments amounted to a usurpation of the jury’s function. In the view of their Lordships it is difficult to see how a judge can usurp the jury’s function short of withdrawing in terms an issue from the jury’s consideration. In other words this was to use a test which by present day standards is too favourable to the prosecution. Comments which fall short of usurpation may nonetheless be so weighted against the defendant at trial as to leave the jury little real choice other than to comply with what are obviously the judge’s views or wishes. ‘
and ‘Their Lordships realise that the judge’s task in this type of trial is never an easy one. He must of course remain impartial, but at the same time the evidence may point strongly to the guilt of the defendant; the judge may often feel that he has to supplement deficiencies in the performance of the prosecution or the defence, in order to maintain a proper balance between the two sides in the adversarial proceedings. It is all too easy for a court thereafter to criticise a judge who may have fallen into error for this reason. However, if the system is trial by jury then the decision must be that of the jury and not of the judge using the jury as something akin to a vehicle for his own views. Whether that is what has happened in any particular case is not likely to be an easy decision.’

Judges:

Lords Lane, Templeman, Oliver, Goff and Woolf

Citations:

[1993] 1 WLR 818

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gilbey CACD 26-Jan-1990
The court warned judges about the need for a balanced summing up to the jury: ‘A judge . . is not entitled to comment in such a way as to make the summing up as a whole unbalanced . . It cannot be said too often or too strongly that a summing up . .
Cited – Berry v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1992
(Jamaica) Appeal from conviction for murder. Accidental discharge of gun in struggle. . .

Cited by:

Approved – Regina v Wood CACD 11-Jul-1995
A newspaper’s pressure on jury to convict by suggesting other evidence, made the trial unfair. Suggestions of unfairness by judge in his summing up should only be made if supported by counsel at the trial. The degree of adverse comment allowed today . .
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.192080

Regina v Miller: 1952

The fact that a defendant has previous convictions is not normally relevant: ‘The fundamental principle, equally applicable to any question that is asked by the defence as to any question that is asked by the prosecution, is that it is not normally relevant to inquire into a prisoner’s previous character, and, particularly, to ask questions which tend to show that he has previously committed some criminal offence. It is not relevant because the fact that he has committed an offence on one occasion does not in any way show that he is likely to commit an offence on any subsequent occasion. Accordingly, such questions are, in general, inadmissible, not primarily for the reason that they are prejudicial, but because they are irrelevant.’
As to the possibility of separate trials for conspirators: ‘The cases must be rare in which fellow conspirators can properly in the interests of justice be granted a separate trial.’ There is a considerable risk with separate trials in such circumstances and on such a charge that the jurors would each hear a very different account of events from the defendants they were trying with a distinct possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1952] 36 Cr App R 169

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD 21-Feb-2003
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . .
Cited – Regina v Thompson and others CACD 1995
The court considered the circumstances under which an accused could call in aid the convictions of a co-defendant:
Held: It was fundamental that it is not normally relevant to enquire into a defendant’s previous character or to ask questions . .
Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Cited – Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary CACD 22-Nov-2002
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable.
Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.189884

Regina v B: CACD 2003

The court allowed an appeal against conviction on charges of sex abuse where the underlying offences had taken place many years before. ‘In this case it has to be recognised that because of the delay that occurred, in our judgment the appellant was put in an impossible position to defend himself. He was not . . able to conduct any proper cross-examination of the complainant. There was no material he could put to the complainant to establish that she had said that something had happened on one occasion which could be established to be incorrect. There was no material in the form of notes . . which showed that she had changed her account. All that the appellant could do was to say that he had not committed the acts alleged against him. [Counsel] says that to say to a jury, when faced with allegations of the sort that were made here, ‘I have not done it’ is virtually no defence at all.”

Judges:

Woolf LCJ

Citations:

[2003] 2 Cr App R 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dutton CACD 1994
The case involved an allegation of sex abuse committed against a young boy who then made no complaint until he was 29, twenty years after the first offence and 14 years after the last offence alleged against the defendant. There was no apparent . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Woodcock v The Government of New Zealand QBD 14-Nov-2003
The applicant, a catholic priest, challenged his extradition for alleged offences of sexual abuse which had taken place in the 1980s, saying it would be an abuse now to prosecute him after such a delay.
Held: The case of R v B was of a . .
Cited – Regina v Smolenski CACD 4-May-2004
The defendant complained that the long delay in his prosecution for alleged sexual assaults was an abuse.
Held: Complaints about delays should normally be dealt with by the court of trial having heard the evidence. It was in the nature of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187955

Regina v Keene: 1977

‘The jury must be told that they can rely on a false alibi as supporting an identification only if they are satisfied that the sole reason for the fabrication was to deceive them on the issue of identification.’

Citations:

[1977] 65 Cr App Rep 247

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Elliott CACD 22-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed from convictions of wounding with intent, and murder. The issue was one of identification, and he criticised the absence of a full Turnbull direction.
Held: A Turnbull warning should warn the jury of the dangers inherent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187263

Regina v Pattinson and Exley: CACD 1996

In giving a Turnbull direction, the court should ‘(a) Warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting on that evidence.. (b) Instruct the jury as to the reason for such need. And (c) Refer the jury to the fact that a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness, and that a number of witnesses can be mistaken.’ In this case: ‘the reference to the fact that questions of identification give considerable concern to the Courts, that concern being based on the fact that mistakes (even by honest and genuine witnesses) are made, does not seem to us adequately to deal either with the Courts’ experience of the risks of miscarriages of justice or how convincing a mistaken witness can be. It does not put across the full force of the requirements that we are presently considering.’

Citations:

(1996) 1 Cr App R 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Elliott CACD 22-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed from convictions of wounding with intent, and murder. The issue was one of identification, and he criticised the absence of a full Turnbull direction.
Held: A Turnbull warning should warn the jury of the dangers inherent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187261

Regina v Berriman: 1854

Citations:

(1854) 6 Cox 388

Cited by:

Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184190

McFadyen v Annan: 1992

The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair.
Held: The question should be whether the delay would so prejudice the prospects of a fair trial to the extent that any such trial would be oppressive. A former, two stage, test was no longer to be followed. Delay before as well as after proceedings were begun could be looked at. In this case there was no such risk of prejudice from any delay.

Citations:

[1992] JC 53, [1992] CLY 5466, 1992 SLT 163

Citing:

Applied – Stuurman v HM Advocate 1980
The court was asked whether a fair trial could take place at all in the light of the pre-trial publicity.
Held: The court noted that the palliative of judicial directions can never be absolutely effective, but the judge had done what he could. . .
Overruled – Tudhope v McCarthy 1985
. .
Overruled – McGeown v HM Advocate 1989
. .
Overruled – Connachan v Douglas 1990
. .
Overruled – HM Advocate v Mechan 1991
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182771

Regina v Jones (Paull Garfield): CACD 8 Oct 2002

The Court of Appeal had ordered the defendant to be re-tried within two months. An initial application for directions was adjourned without the defendant being re-arraigned, and then was adjourned again to a date outside the two month limit. Defence solicitors, knowing the difficulty declined to express a view either way.
Held: The arraignment could take place exceptionally outside the two month limit. The duty under the act for the prosecution to act with ‘all due expedition’ was a more restricted requirement than the one to act with ‘due diligence’, and there was also a duty on the defence to ensure that effect was given to the order of the Court.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Wright, Henriques JJ

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2002, Gazette 31-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 8(1B)

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177489

Regina (Hart) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: QBD 19 Dec 2001

The defendant to extradition proceedings had breached her bail by going on holiday. She had been arrested and sent to the extraditing country which had in turn withdrawn the extradition request to the UK.
Held: The surety could not be forfeited under the section merely for the breach of the bail condition by a defendant. The test was whether she turned up at court. The whole purpose of the machinery of those provisions was to ensure that the accused was returned to the requesting state. That purpose had been achieved. The words ‘or if the fugitive is directed to surrender to this or any other court in relation to these proceedings’ should be added to the wording of standard recognisance orders in extradition committal proceedings.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-2002

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 120, Extradition Act 1989 9(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.167397

Regina v Gough (Stephen): CACD 8 Nov 2001

Where a defendant absconded and failed to give evidence, it was not right for the judge to direct the jury that his failure to give evidence because of his absconding allowed the drawing of adverse inferences. Before such an inference could be drawn, the defendant had to have the consequences of his failure to give evidence explained to him, and that would not have been done in the case of an absconder. That warning was mandatory.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Poole and Mr Justice David Steel

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.166837

Regina v Pearce: CACD 2002

An unmarried partner in a long-term relationship with the accused was a compellable witness against him even though, had they been married, she would not have been. The statutory provisions applied to husband and wife and no one else.

Citations:

[2002] 1 CAR 39

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence 1984

Cited by:

Cited – Bala and Others, Regina v CACD 10-May-2016
The court was asked whether parties to a polygamous marriage recognised in Nigeria could be exempt thereby from a charge as co-conspirators because of s2 of the 1977 Act. The judge had held the marriage invalid after finding that the defendant was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.564473

Webster v Ministry of Justice: QBD 23 Oct 2014

The claimant had been convicted at trial, and release after a successful appeal but after considerable time in jail. He now comlained of the judge’s conduct at trial saying that misdirections amounted to bad faith.
Held: The claim failed. Mitting J said: ‘If I were to attempt a partial definition of bad faith, it would be that the judge was acting for a purpose ulterior to her judicial function. For my part, I doubt that summings-up of yesteryear which would now be categorised as grossly unfair, fall into this category, because for all of the criticisms that might be made of the judges, they were at least trying to fulfil their judicial duty.
In my judgment, the claimant’s case gets nowhere near establishing that Judge Kershaw acted in bad faith.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3995 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 6 9(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly CA 1978
Megaw LJ set out a definition of ‘bad faith’: ‘I would suggest – that it seems to me that an unfortunate tendency has developed of looseness of language in the respect – that bad faith or, as it is sometimes put, ‘lack of good faith,’ means . .
Cited – In re McC (A Minor); McC v Mullan HL 1984
The House considered the immunity from suit of judges. The Magistrate here had passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with a statutory provision which required him to inform the offender of the right to Legal Aid.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Webster v Lord Chancellor CA 14-Jul-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his allegations against his trial judge of bad faith. He had been convicted at trial, but later released.
Held: The appeal failed. The allegations made that errors of approach of a Crown Court judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.541558

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey and Others: QBD 28 Oct 1993

Parole provisions are to apply to life prisoners who had been transferred transferred to a mental hospital.

Citations:

Times 28-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 34 sch12 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87931

Regina v Wright: 2014

The court decided to refuse to lift a stay granted by a circuit judge, but to permit the admission of evidence founding counts subject to this delay as evidence of very similar conduct, adduced to rebut any suggestion of concoction or mistake.

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Crim 1790

Cited by:

Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.537762

Rex v Green: 1950

Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Any communication between a jury and the presiding judge must be read out in court, so that both parties, the prosecution and the defence, may know what the jury are asking and what is the answer ‘

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1950] 34 Cr App R 38

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.534459

Regina v Edwards: CACD 2004

In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the judge would be required to withdraw the case if some inference other than guilt could reasonably be drawn from the facts proved: he should only withdraw it if he considered it unsafe for the jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty on the totality of the evidence. It is not the law that the prosecution must exclude all other possible inferences.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 2102

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.510095

Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Costs): 2004

‘Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted, or in respect of which proceedings against him have been sent for trial or transferred for trial, or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a defendant’s costs order in his favour. Such an order should normally be made whether or not an order for costs between the parties is made, unless there are positive reasons for not doing so. For example, where the defendant’s own conduct has brought suspicion on himself and has misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him was stronger than it was, the defendant can be left to pay his own costs. The court when declining to make a costs order should explain, in open court, that the reason for not making an order does not involve any suggestion that the defendant is guilty of any criminal conduct but the order is refused because of the positive reason that should be identified.’

Citations:

[2004] 1 WLR 2657

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Spiteri, Regina (On the Application of) v Basildon Crown Court Admn 19-Mar-2009
The driver had successfully appealed against his conviction at the Magistrates, the court finding that the officer had not shown that he had asked a required question. He now appealed against refusal of an award of costs, the court having said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.444595

Smith v HM Advocate: HCJ 1952

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Thomson

Citations:

1952 JC 66

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440845

Downie v HM Advocate: HCJ 1952

Judges:

Lord Justice General Cooper

Citations:

1952 JC 37

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440844

Cameron v HM Advocate: 1991

Citations:

1991 JC 252

Cited by:

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

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440846

Regina v Ghulam: CACD 21 Oct 2009

If a defendant wished the court to consider whether he was fit to plead, he must provide reports from two medical experts to comply with the statute. In this case, the court had been provided with only one, and was therefore unable to consider the plea.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mrs Justice Sharpe

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2009

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28), Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.377226

Caswell v Morgan: 30 Apr 1859

A common informer may lay an information against a pawnbroker, for an offence under the Pawnbrokers Act 39 and 40 G 3 c 99; and is entitled under sect 26 of the Act to a moiety of the penalty imposed upon the offender.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 524, (1859) 1 El and El 809, (1859) 120 ER 1114

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.287876

In Re O (Restraint Order: Disclosure of Assets): 1991

A restraint order had been made against O in an action under the 1988 Act. He sought a variation. On the application of the prosecutor he was ordered to file an affidavit of means. He sought to appeal, but the prosecutor said no appeal lay.
Held: An appeal was possible. It succeeded only to the extent that the court ordered that it should not be available in evidence against the defendant in criminal proceedings against O or his wife. Donaldson J drew a distinction between a judgment ‘in a criminal cause or matter’ and a judgment ‘collateral to a criminal cause or matter’.’

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 520

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(1)

Citing:

Cited – Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1985
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knowles and others v Superintendent of HM Prison Fox Hill and others PC 23-Mar-2005
(Bahamas) The claimants resisted requests for their extradition to the US on drugs charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276504

Regina v Reigate Justices ex parte Argus Newspapers and Larcombe: 1983

The court considered an application by the defendant, a ‘supergrass’ for his trial to be held in camera.
Held: Such an order was possible but should only be made if it was the only way of protecting the defendant.

Citations:

(1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 181

Cited by:

Cited – In re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Regina and others CMAC 24-Oct-2008
Anonymity not to be by secret trial
The newspaper appealed against an order for the defendant soldiers’ trial to be held in camera.
Held: Section 94(2) could not be used to provide anonymity. The court relied on its common law powers under which: ‘for us to be entitled to make . .
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Soldier B CACD 24-Oct-2008
(Court’s Martial Appeal Court) The newspaper appealed against an order under section 94 of the 1955 Act restricting the identification of the defendants. The judge had said there would be a threat to both the safety of the defendants and as to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.277160