[2004] 4 All ER 391
England and Wales
Cited – King v The Serious Fraud Office CACD 18-Mar-2008
Restraint and Disclosure orders had been made on without notice applications at the request of South Africa. The applicant appealed a refusal of their discharge.
Held: Such orders did not apply to the applicant’s assets in Scotland. The orders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.273115
Judicial Review of a costs award to counsel 11 months after trial.
Ind Summary 10-May-1993
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87194
Police have no power to retain cash on basis that it represented a fraudulent claim for benefits.
Times 23-Jan-1996
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89305
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their credibility. The appeals were upheld, and the crown in turn appealed.
Held: Both exculpatory and inculpatory parts of a defence statement were to be left to the jury as truth of their content. A judge could comment if a defendant failed to allow his account to be tested by cross examination, but had a discretion not to do so if common sense required otherwise. Here the convictions had been correctly quashed. A defendant is entitled to a good character direction on first conviction though the Judge may make amendments to the standard directions for propensity and credibility though other admissions. The good character of an accused is relevant not only to credibility but also to the likelihood that he would commit the offence in question.
The purpose of a good character direction was considered by Lord Steyn: ‘it has long been recognised that the good character of a defendant is logically relevant to his credibility and to the likelihood that he would commit the offence in question. That seems obvious. The question might nevertheless be posed: why should a judge be obliged to give directions on good character? The answer is that in modern practice a judge almost invariably reminds the jury of the principal points of the prosecution case. At the same time he must put the defence case before the jury in a fair and balanced way. Fairness requires that the judge should direct the jury about good character because it is evidence of probative significance. Leaving it entirely to the discretion of trial judges to decide whether to give directions on good character led to inconsistency and to repeated appeals. Hence there has been a shift from discretion to rules of practice and Vye was the culmination of this development . .’
Lord Steyn asked ‘What is good character?’ He recognised that a defendant may have no previous convictions but it may emerge during the course of the trial, for example through cross-examination on behalf of a co-defendant, that the defendant has in fact been dishonest for many years. How should the judge deal with such a case? Lord Steyn continued: ‘A good starting point is that a judge should never be compelled to give meaningless or absurd directions. And cases occur from time to time where a defendant, who has no previous convictions, is shown beyond doubt to have been guilty of serious criminal behaviour similar to the offence charged in the indictment. A sensible criminal justice system should not compel a judge to go through the charade of giving directions in according with the Vye in a case where the defendant’s claim to good character is spurious. I would further hold that a trial judge has a residual discretion to decline to give any character directions in the case of a defendant without previous convictions if the judge considers it an insult to common sense to give directions in accordance with Vye . . That brings me to the nature of the discretion. Discretions range from the open-textured discretionary powers to narrowly circumscribed discretionary powers. The residual discretion of a trial judge to dispense with character directions in respect of a defendant of good character is of the more limited variety. Prima facie directions must be given and the judge will often be able to place a fair and balanced picture before the jury by giving directions in accordance with Vye . . and then adding words of qualification concerning other proved or possible criminal conduct of the defendant which emerged during the trial. On the other hand, if it would make no sense to give character directions in accordance with Vye, the judge may in his discretion dispense with them’
Lord Steyn
Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Independent 16-Jun-1995, Times 16-Jun-1995, [1996] AC 41, [1995] 3 All ER 149, [1995] 2 Cr App R 478
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Durbin CACD 1995
The appellant had been convicted of the importation of 875 kilos of cannabis. He had spent convictions but more significantly he admitted in interview being engaged in smuggling other contraband goods. Furthermore, he admitted telling lies to the . .
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 Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Ian Cauldero and Nigill Francois v The State PC 28-Sep-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They complained at to the judge’s direction as to a statement and as to intent, where they had said that the gun had been wrestled . .
Applied – Thompson v The Queen PC 16-Feb-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit . .
Cited – Teeluck and John v The State PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases . .
Cited – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – Onasanya v London Borough of Newham Admn 14-Jul-2006
The defendant had tried to sell his car by placing a notice in a rear window saying it was for sale, and leaving it on the street.
Held: The authority said that there was more than one purpose in the vehicle being left on the street, and that . .
Cited – Lord-Castle v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 23-Jan-2009
The defendant appealed by case stated from his conviction for using a motor vehicle fitted with a siren. When stopped various items suggesting that driver might be providing an ambulance service were found. The siren was not used.
Held: The . .
Cited – Krishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
Cited – Shirley, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2013
The defendant had been convicted of several very serious sexual and physical assaults and rapes. He appealed against his conviction, saying that the judge had not fairly represented his defence to the jury. He said that the complainant had been . .
Cited – Regina v Gray CACD 30-Apr-2004
The court examined the authorities as to good chracter directions where a defendant had previous convictions. Rix LJ said: ‘In our judgment the authorities discussed above entitled us to state the following principles as applicable in this context: . .
Cited – GAI v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2012
The defendant’s appeal based on the absence of a good character direction had succeeded. The court now gave its reasons.
Held: After reviewing the authorities, the appeal succeeded: ‘the learned judge was wrong to find that the fact that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86077
Court must now have regard to actual sentence to be served.
Gazette 16-Dec-1992
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84935
The applicant having been cautioned for an offence under the Companies Act 1985, he objected to being required to answer questions put to him in connection with the matter by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office under the 1987 Act.
Held: The duty under the Act to answer SFO questions, continues even after the defendant is charged. The House identified six forms of immunity including: ‘a general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies’ for which there were several motives.
Lord Mustill said: ‘That there is strong presumption against interpreting the statute as taking away the right of silence, at least in some of its forms, cannot in my view be doubted. Recently, Lord Griffiths (delivering the opinion in the Privy Council in Lam Chi-ming v The Queen [1991] 2 AC 212, 222) described the privilege against self-incrimination as ‘deep rooted in English law,’ and I would not wish to minimise its importance in any way. Nevertheless it is clear that statutory interference with the right is almost as old as the right itself. Since the 16th century legislation has established an inquisitorial form of investigation into the dealings and assets of bankrupts which is calculated to yield potentially incriminating material, and in more recent times there have been many other examples, in widely separated fields, which are probably more numerous than is generally appreciated.
These statutes differ widely as to their aims and methods. In the first place, the ways in which the overriding of the immunity is conveyed are not the same. Sometimes it is made explicit. More commonly, it is left to be inferred from general language which contains no qualification in favour of the immunity. Secondly, there are variations in the effect on the admissibility of information obtained as a result of the investigation. The statute occasionally provides in so many terms that the information may be used in evidence; sometimes that it may not be used for certain purposes, inferentially permitting its use for others; or it may be expressly prescribed that the evidence is not to be admitted; or again, the statute may be silent.’
and ‘The first is a simple reflection of the common view that one person should so far as possible be entitled to tell another person to mind his own business . . Secondly, there is a long history of reaction against abuses of judicial interrogation. . Next there is the instinct that it is contrary to fair play to put the accused in a position where he is exposed to punishment whatever he does. If he answers, he may condemn himself out of his own mouth; if he refuses he may be punished for his refusal. . Finally there is the desire to minimise the risk that an accused will be convicted on the strength of an untrue extra-judicial confession, to which the law gives effect by refusing to admit confessions in evidence except upon proof that they are ‘voluntary.”
and ‘Few would dispute that some curtailment of the liberty is indispensable to the stability of society; and indeed in the United Kingdom today our lives are permeated by enforceable duties to provide information on demand . .’
Lord Mustill
Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 3 All ER 456, [1992] 3 WLR 66, [1993] AC 1, [1992] BCLC 879
Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(2)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Ex Parte Smith QBD 11-Mar-1992
The Serious Fraud Office may interview a defendant after he has been charged, but must give the caution and act accordingly and with caution. . .
Appealed to – Regina v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Ex Parte Smith QBD 11-Mar-1992
The Serious Fraud Office may interview a defendant after he has been charged, but must give the caution and act accordingly and with caution. . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Cited – Regina v S and A CACD 9-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2000 Act for failing to disclose the key used to encrypt a computer file. He was subject to a control order as a suspected terrorist. As the police raided his house, they found the key had been . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86551
Once the charges had been withdrawn by the prosecutor, the former defendant was no longer an accused, and the magistrates had no power to re-open the case to alter an order for costs they had made.
Times 27-Jul-1998
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)
Cited – Regina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79272
A witness’s written statement might be admitted where his absence from court was caused by the defendant.
(1851) 17 QB 238
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270041
The court was asked whether a private person could prosecute a butcher for exposing rotten meat for sale.
Held: Provided the purpose of the offence was to protect the public, any person could bring a prosecution. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Can a private person institute proceedings under section 47, sub-s.2? Apart from express provisions limiting the right, I should have thought the point was too clear for argument . . Having regard to the object of the statute, the protection of the public against the offering of diseased meat for sale, I think that if it had been intended to limit the right to take proceedings for the recovery of penalties to a limited class of persons, such as medical officers and sanitary inspectors, words would have been introduced into the section taking away from private persons the right to lay informations under the section.’
Lord Alverstone CJ
[1906] 1 KB 709
Public Health (London) Act 1891 47(2)
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267546
(South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert.
Held: It is for the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose there are two questions for the judge to decide: ‘The first is whether the subject matter of the opinion falls within the class of subjects upon which expert testimony is permissible. This . . may be divided into two parts: (a) whether the subject matter of the opinion is such that a person without instruction or experience in the area of knowledge or human experience would be able to form a sound judgment on the matter without the assistance of witnesses possessing special knowledge or experience in the area, and (b) whether the subject matter of the opinion forms part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience, a special acquaintance with which by the witness would render his opinion of assistance to the court. The second question is whether the witness has acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge of the subject to render his opinion of value in resolving the issues before the court.
An investigation of the methods used by the witness in arriving at his opinion may be pertinent, in certain circumstances, to the answers to both the above questions . . Where the witness possesses the relevant formal qualifications to express an opinion on the subject, an investigation on the voir dire of his methods will rarely be permissible on the issue of his qualifications. There may be greater scope for such examination where the alleged qualifications depended upon experience or informal studies… Generally speaking, once the qualifications are established, the methodology will be relevant to the weight of the evidence and not to the competence of the witness to express an opinion…’
[1984] 38 SASR 45
Australia
Approved – Doughty v Ely Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 7-Mar-2008
The claimant sought judicial review. He practised giving evidence as to the operation of traffic speed cameras. The defendant magistrates had declined to accept his evidence saying that he was not an expert.
Held: ‘Whether someone is competent . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267002
The defendant was prosecuted under the 1814 Act for offences of remong shingle from the beach at Sidmouth. He questioned the authority of the prosecutor who was not specificlly authorised under regulations to lay the complaint.
Held: The prosecution was proper.
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘I think that we must consider that the statute was passed for the protection of the realm, and in those circumstances it seems to me that under s.21 the information could be laid by a person in the position of surveyor to the district counsel.’
Lord Alverstone CJ
[1911] 76 JP 71
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267547
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a private prosecution under the 1852 Act which controlled the right to set up and operate market stalls. The Act was a local Act. The court considered when magistrates should allow a private prosecution.
Held: Only the operator of the market could bring a prosecution. A summons may be issued where the offence is not an individual grievance, but is rather a matter of public policy and utility, and concerns public morals. In such a case anyone has the general power to prosecute, unless the statute gauging the offence contains some restriction or regulation limiting the right to some particular person or party.
Lord Campbell CJ said: ‘The clause on which this conviction proceeds appears to have been framed solely and exclusively for the protection and benefit of the Torquay market company . . This enactment is not for the benefit of the inhabitants of Torquay, nor of licensed hawkers, but merely for the benefit of the company, that they may be reimbursed the expenses they have incurred from purchasing the new market-place and erecting sheds and stalls, stations and other conveniences therein . . the penalty under section 31 cannot be recovered, except upon an information laid with the authority of the company.’
Lord Campbell CJ
[1855] 19 JP 515
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267548
The court was asked whether a Highway Act applied to London.
Held: It did. Mr A L Smith asked: ‘the second question is whether the initiative can be taken by the police in the prosecution under section 72 of the act. Why not? Anybody may prosecute if an offence has been committed.’ Wills J said: ‘ the Highway Act seems to apply generally, and a prosecution for this offence under section 72 of the Highway Act was competent; and if so, anybody could prosecute.’
Wills J
[1887] 51 JP 693
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267545
The defendant appealed his conviction under the Act, a private one. It was said that as an innkeeper, he had knowingly suffered four common prostitutes to assemble at and continue in his house and premises contrary to that Act. The Clerk of the Paving Commissioners brought the prosecution.
Held: The prosecutor had standing to issue the summons. Lord Cockburn CJ said: ‘The offence is not a matter of individual grievance as to which provision is made merely for the protection of individual rights, but the matter is one of public policy and utility with a view to the preservation of public morals. The general act gives authority to any one to prosecute for penalties who chooses to do so . . There is a plain distinction between the case of an offence which must be prosecuted for the public protection and where the enactment is one for the protection of individuals.’
Lord Cockburn CJ
[1860] 24 JP 596
King’s Lynn Waterworks and Borough Improvement Act 1859
Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267544
Ashworth J said: ‘The argument for the appellants appeared to involve the proposition that an indictment, in order to be defective, must be one which in law did not charge any offence at all and therefore is bad on the face of it. We do not take that view. In our opinion, any alteration in matters of description, and probably in many other respects, may be made in order to meet the evidence in the case so long as the amendment causes no injustice to the accused person.’ and ‘amendment of an indictment during the course of a trial is likely to prejudice an accused person. The longer the interval between arraignment and amendment, the more likely is it that injustice will be caused, and in every case in which amendment is sought, it is essential to consider with great care whether the accused person will be prejudiced thereby.’
Karminski LJ, Ashworth and Hinchcliffe JJ
(1972) 56 Cr App R 348, [1973] QB 475
England and Wales
Cited – Mote v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
Approved – Regina v Radley CACD 1973
On a single count indictment alleging conspiracy to defraud, after the Prosecution opening it amended by addition counts to cater for the possibility that more than one conspiracy had existed; This made the case easier for the Jury and no injustice . .
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.263211
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 arrests and orders in 1993. Reliance was placed upon Article 6 of the ECHR.
Held: There had been two periods of unreasonable delay amounting to about 23 months in total. As to the consequences: ‘Has there been a breach of the reasonable time requirements? If the Court finds that there has been a breach of the reasonable time requirements:
‘it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.’
Mr. Turner contends for a stay of the present proceedings and asks me to lift the restraint orders.
In assessing whether there has been a breach of the reasonable time requirements I must consider the facts of the case, the conduct of the parties and the reason for any delay. These are proceedings brought by the State to enforce a criminal order made in criminal proceedings against the Defendant.
In Attorney General’s Reference (N0. 2 of 2001) [2004] 2 WLR 1 at paragraph 22, Lord Bingham stated ‘the Convention is directed not to departures from the ideal but to infringements of basic human rights, and the threshold of proving a breach of the reasonable time requirement is a high one, not easily exceeded. Judges should not be faced with applications based on lapses of time which, even if they should not have occurred, arouse no serious concern.
There can be no doubting that there has been a departure from the ideal in the present case. Mr Talbot acknowledges that fact but contends that in the context of the circumstances of this case as a whole this is not an excessively long period and it cannot properly be characterised as an infringement of basic human rights.’
The appropriate remedy for the breach of the Convention right was to make a public announcement of the fact of the breach. No more was required as a proportionate response, balancing the interests of the individuals and the community as a whole. The delay had not prejudiced the fair hearing of the substantive issues.
Henriques J
[2005] EWHC 2013 (Admin)
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, Human Rights Act 1998
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Foxley and others Admn 10-Dec-2007
In 1992, the claimant and members of his family were made subject to restraint orders after his conviction for corruption. They now applied for discharge of the orders claiming excessive delay. Nothing had moved forward since 1996, saying hey had in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261936
Two offences can constitute a series of offences, but there has to be some nexus between the offences. Lord Pearson said: ‘In my opinion, however, it is important to notice that there has to be a series of offences of a similar character. For this purpose there has to be some nexus between the offences. Counsel criticised the wording of passages in judgments appearing to say that there cannot be similarity of character without a nexus. But I think this criticism, if it has any validity, applies only to the wording, and not to the substance, because when regard is had to the requirement of a series of similar offences it is right to look for a nexus. Nexus is a feature of similarity which in all the circumstances of the case enables the offences to be described as a series.’ The nexus requisite to establish a ‘series of offences of . . [a] similar character’ may be satisfied by the cross-admissibility of evidence’
As to the need if any for separate trials under the 1915 Act, Lord Pearson said: ‘The judge has no duty to direct separate trials under section 5(3) unless in his opinion there is some special feature of the case which would make a joint trial of the several counts prejudicial or embarrassing to the accused and separate trials are required in the interests of justice. In some cases the offences charged may be too numerous and complicated . . or too difficult to disentangle . . so that a joint trial of all the counts is likely to cause confusion and the defence may be embarrassed or prejudiced. In other cases objection may be taken to the inclusion of a count on the ground that it is of a scandalous nature and likely to arouse in the minds of the jury hostile feelings against the accused . . ‘
Lord Pearson
[1971] AC 29
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v Kray CACD 1969
The court dealt with a case where prejudice was claimed on behalf of the defendant because of publicity before the trial. Lawton J said: ‘The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.’
Cited – Hamilton, Regina v CACD 16-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency. He had surreptitously filmed up the skirts of women in a supermarket. The offence was only discovered after the films were found on a search of his home for other material. The . .
Cited – Regina v KL CACD 22-Jan-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape and against his sentence. He complained that the judge had allowed two unconnected allegations to appear on the same indictment. He had also been convicted of the burglary of the complainant’s . .
Cited – JT v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against convictions for rape and perverting the course of justice. There had been a history between the parties of false allegations and of acting out rape fantasies. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.258847
A courts martial prosecution begun without the necessary prior consent, the proceedings were a nullity.
[1970] AC 394
England and Wales
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.254622
SC when aged 11 was charged with attempted robbery. He had previous convictions, and was committed to the crown court for trial. He applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process on account of limited intellectual capacity, and inability effectively to take part in a trial. It was not said that he was unfit to plead, but that a crown court trial would be a breach of his Article 6 Convention rights. He was tried and convicted; his appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) failed.
Held: SC’s Article 6 rights had been breached if he had been unable effectively to participate in his trial. The Court described ‘effective participation’ in a trial: ‘However, ‘effective participation’ in this context presupposes that the accused has a broad understanding of the nature of the trial process and of what is at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed. It means that he or she, if necessary with the assistance of, for example, an interpreter, lawyer, social worker or friend, should be able to understand the general thrust of what is said in court. The defendant should be able to follow what is said by the prosecution witness and, if represented, to explain to his own lawyers his version of events, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make them aware of any facts which should be put forward in his defence.’
[2004] 40 EHRR 10
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P Admn 27-Apr-2007
The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251548
When a defendant argues for an abuse of process from delay, the court should make its ruling only after the close of the prosecution case, when the effect of the delay may be properly understood. A stay should be exceptional.
[2004] 2 Cr App R 40
England and Wales
Cited – Ali, Altaf v Crown Prosecution Service, West Midlands CACD 22-Mar-2007
The defendant was first arrested in 1997, but only re-arrested in 2004. He complained that the delay affected his right to a fair trial within a proper time. The judge accepted this but the trial proceeded, the judge denying a claim of abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.250549
[2004] EWCA Crim 1579
England and Wales
Cited – 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.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.248457
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a discretion which extends to enable it to stay a second prosecution where that second prosecution can properly be said to be oppressive in nature. Ackner LJ posed the question: ‘Should the prosecution be entitled, as they seek, to treat the first committal proceedings, for all practical purposes as a dummy run, and, having concluded that they over-complicated them, bring virtually the same proceedings but in a form in which they should have been brought if proper thought had been given by the prosecution to them, in the first place?’ He gave this a dusty answer: ‘To allow prohibition in this case should bring home to the prosecution the desirability of following the advice which the Appellate Courts have given again and again. The prosecution must direct its energies to the simplification of cases they desire to present. All too often juries, and to a lesser extent magistrates, are treated like computers into whom superfluous and ill-digested material is fed in the over-optimistic hope that somehow or another they will produce the right result.’
Ackner LJ
(1980) 75 Cr App R 236
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office QBD 12-Feb-2015
The claimants had had criminal charges brought against them by the defendants. A court had ordered them discharged, but the defendant had recommenced proceedings and these second set of proceedings had also been dismissed by the court. They now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244671
(Commission) The applicant said that having been pressured into pleading guilty: ‘The Commission examined this complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and also under Article 6(2) (Art. 6-2) of the Convention, which provides that ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law’.
The Commission notes that, under English criminal procedure, if a person pleads guilty there is no trial in the usual sense; if the judge is satisfied that the accused understands the effect of his plea his confession is recorded, and the subsequent proceedings are concerned only with the question of sentence.
The Commission, having examined this practice in the context of English criminal procedures and also the other systems among those States Parties to the Convention where a similar practice is found, is satisfied that the practice as such is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 6(1) and (2) (Art. 6-1, 6-2) of the Convention. In arriving at this conclusion, the Commission has had regard to the rules under which the practice operates and in particular to the safeguards which are provided to avoid the possibility of abuse.’
Unreported, 23 March 1972, 5076/71
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited – Revitt, Borg and Barnes v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Sep-2006
The defendants appealed against refusal of leave to withdraw their pleas of guilty. They argued that the current practice infringed their human rights.
Held: The magistrates had been correct not to allow the defendants to withdraw their pleas. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.244869
Exercise of the right of privilege against self-incrimination.
[1992] Ch 475
Cited – Bishopsgate Investment Limited v Maxwell CA 1999
A person required to answer questions under the section may not refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination. (Dillon LJ) ‘It is plain to my mind – and not least from the Cork Report – that part of the mischief in the old law before the . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.242407
If a defendant refuses to take part in his trial, as if he absconds, in order to prevent trial he may not rely on silence or absence to avoid or postpone trial.
[1960] 1 QB 357
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.242116
[2004] 2 Cr App R 661
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240322
[2003] EWCA Crim 2427
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.240321
‘any alteration [of an indictment] in matters of description, and probably in many other respects, may be made in order to meet the evidence in the case as long as the amendment causes no injustice to the accused person’.
[1951] 1 KB 53, (1950) 34 Cr App R 168
Cited – Regina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Approved – Regina v Radley 1973
Lord Widgery CJ ‘one ought to give a fairly liberal meaning to the language of section 5’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237903
A magistrate should consider, before issuing a summons, whether it appears to be vexatious.
Lord Alverstone CJ
(1902) 85 LT 581
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .
Cited – Regina v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court ex parte Still, Lawlan, Davidson, Pryor, and Forrest Admn 18-Sep-1996
A man was accused of a series of mortgage frauds. The defendants each gave evidence to the court. He made a complaint of perjury against each of them. The current defendants sought judicial review of a refusal to discharge the summonses.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237557
[1977] 1 WLR 1143
Cited – Regina v Cain HL 1985
The sentencing judge had exceeded his powers by making a criminal bankruptcy order. S40 appeared to deny a right of appeal against such an order.
Held: There is a strong presumption that except by specific provision the legislature will not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.237420
Hallett LJ, Owen J
[2006] EWHC 307 (Admin), [2006] 2 Cr App Rep 13, [2006] 4 All ER 1029
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.239155
[2013] EWCA Civ 118, [2013] 3 WLR 439, [2014] 1 QB 112, [2013] 3 All ER 95, [2013] WLR(D) 84
England and Wales
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.471224
The defendant had married the complainant only two days before he was to face trial for assaulting her. The House considered whether she was compellable as a witness against him as his wife.
Held: A spouse ought not to have been compelled to give evidence against her husband who was charged with wounding her with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘a wife is in principle not a competent witness on a criminal charge against her husband. This is because of the identity of interest between husband and wife and because to allow her to give evidence would give rise to discord and to perjury and would be, to ordinary people, repugnant. Limited exceptions have been engrafted on this rule, of which the most important, and that now relevant, relates to cases of personal violence by the husband against her. This required that, as she is normally the only witness and because otherwise a crime would go without sanction, she be permitted to give evidence against him. But does this permission in the interest of the wife, carry the matter any further, or do the general considerations, arising from the fact of marriage and her status as a wife, continue to apply so as to negative compulsion? . . My Lords, after careful consideration I have reached the conclusion . . that the wife should be held non-compellable.’
Lord Wilberforce
[1979] AC 474
England and Wales
Cited – J and B CA 7-Nov-2002
The Crown prosecution service sought judicial review of a decision by the registrar of marriages to celebrate the marriage between the parties. He was due to face trial for murder, and she was to give evidence against him.
Held: The registrar . .
Cited – RL v Regina (Evidence of wife) CACD 7-May-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault on his daughter. Whilst he was in custody, the police approached his wife and took a statement from her which was used in evidence. The defendant complained that since they had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235943
The Board considered the application of the proviso in criminal appeals: ‘The test which an appeal court is to apply to the proviso was recently referred to by Viscount Dilhorne in Chung Kum Moey v Public Prosecutor for Singapore [1967] 2 AC 173, 185 quoting the classic passage by Lord Sankey in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462, 482-483, whether ‘if the jury had been properly directed they would inevitably have come to the same conclusion’. Viscount Dilhorne also referred to Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions [1944] AC 315, 321, where Lord Simon said that the provision assumed ‘a situation where a reasonable jury, after being properly directed would, on the evidence properly admissible, without doubt convict.”
Lord Guest
[1972] AC 100
Australia
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.231668
(Supreme Court of Canada) The Crown had decided not to call a witness who was considered unworthy of credit by Crown counsel. The witness could have given evidence directly relevant to the issues arising at the trial. The Crown also refused to disclose the statements of the witness to the defence.
Held: Crown counsel misconceived his obligation to disclose the statements. Crown counsel had refused disclosure because in his view, the witness was not worthy of credit. This was not an adequate explanation. The trial judge ought to have examined the statements and erred in holding that the Crown counsel was not under an obligation to make disclosure of the statements. The failure of the Crown to make disclosure impaired the right of the accused to make full answer and defence. It must be assumed that non-production of statements was an important factor in the decision of the defence not to call the witness. The absence of this evidence might very well have affected the outcome. Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and a new trial ordered at which the statements should be produced.
Stopinka J said: ‘I would add that the fruits of the investigation which are in the possession of counsel for the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.’ and ‘Refusal to disclose is also justified on the ground that the material will be used to enable the defence to tailor its evidence to conform with information in the Crown’s possession. For example, a witness may change his or her testimony to conform with a previous statement given to the police or counsel for the Crown. I am not impressed with this submission. All forms of discovery are subject to this criticism. There is surely nothing wrong in a witness refreshing his or her memory from a previous statement or document. The witness may even change his or her evidence as a result. This may rob the cross-examiner of a substantial advantage but fairness to the witness may require that a trap not be laid by allowing the witness to testify without the benefit of seeing contradictory writings which the prosecutor holds close to the vest. The principle has been accepted that the search for truth is advanced rather than retarded by disclosure of all relevant material.’
Sopinka J
(1991) 68 CCC (3d) 1
Cited – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.231070
The accused sought to defend a charge on indictment of assault on a special defence of self-defence and gave notice of an intention to attack the character of the complainer and the other two Crown witnesses. He sought the previous convictions of the complainer and these witnesses, as well as those relating to a third witness who had been cited for the defence.
Held: The court declined to follow Ashrif and ordered production of the previous convictions of all four witnesses: ‘In my opinion, provided the witnesses’ previous convictions are relevant to a legitimate attack on character or to their credibility, the material sought would plainly be relevant to his defence. It is therefore material which the petitioner is prima facie entitled to have disclosed to him. Moreover, in my view he is prima facie entitled to have it disclosed to him in advance of the trial. His right is to have disclosed to him material necessary for the proper preparation as well as the proper presentation of his defence. Possession of information about the witnesses’ relevant criminal records would enable the petitioner’s counsel or solicitor to make proper preparation for the cross-examination of the witnesses in question. Lack of that information in advance would not wholly preclude the contemplated lines of cross-examination, but would make embarking on them a much more uncertain course. Matters of credibility and character depend very much on the impressions made on the jury, and cross-examination might well be less effective if embarked upon without knowledge of the detail of the witnesses’ records. An impression unfairly unfavourable to the petitioner might be made on the jury if cross-examination were embarked upon on his behalf, appeared to be unsuccessful, then was followed by re-examination which showed that the cross-examiner had been ill-informed.’
Lord Macfadyen
2001 SCCR 172
Scotland
Not Followed – HM Advocate v Ashrif 1988
The accused had sought to recover the previous convictions of the complainant not from the prosecution, but from the Scottish Criminal Record Office.
Held: The appeal court came down firmly against permitting defence agents to recover the . .
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225526
The judge warned the jury of the dangers in assessing evidence: ‘The task of assessment is not an easy one: it is certainly one which has to be approached with great care and circumspection.’
1991 SCCR 986
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225522
The court emphasised that, when a case comes to trial, ‘the interests of the accused person demand that the Crown should prove its case against him without any assistance whatever on his part’.
Lord Justice General Hope
1990 SCCR 296
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225523
‘it is legitimate to charge on a single information one activity even though the activity may involve more than one act’.
Lord Widgery CJ
[1972] 56 Cr App R 229
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v Merriman CACD 1973
Although the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is not so strictly bound by its own previous decisions as is the civil division, its liberty to depart from precedent which it is convinced was erroneous is restricted to cases where the . .
Cited – Tovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005
Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224232
After an assault S, aged 15, was detained, arrested and charged with assaulting L. The procurator fiscal decided not to prosecute, and the matter was reported to the police and to the reporter and on to a children’s hearing to consider if measures of supervision were necessary and also if he had committed an offence. S to denied an assault, and that question was referred to a sheriff for determination. Such a proceeding had some features of a criminal proceeding. The criminal burden applied and an adverse finding would be a conviction to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applied. It was accepted by S in the Court of Session that the children’s hearing would determine S’s civil rights and obligations within the meaning of article 6; the question was whether, as S contended, it would determine a criminal charge against him within the meaning of the article. The reporter tried to show that S had committed a criminal assault, but the proceedings were categorised as civil and not criminal.
Held: Ruling against S on this issue. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord President: ‘In itself the character which the proceedings have in our domestic law is not, of course, conclusive of the character which they should have under the Convention. Nevertheless, if one asks why, ultimately, Parliament has provided for civil rather than criminal proceedings, then the answer must be that, even though they may involve establishing that the child has committed an offence, there is no possibility of the child being punished, having a penalty imposed. On the contrary, in a sec 52(2)(i) case, as in any other, the aim of all the measures in chap 3 of the 1995 Act is, as its title proclaims, the ‘Protection and Supervision of Children’. More particularly, sec 52 deals with ‘Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision’ and so the aim of all such proceedings is for the hearing to determine whether the child concerned requires such compulsory supervision in his own interests, the decision always being taken with the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration (sec 16(1)). Similarly, the reporter can refer a case to a hearing under sec 65(1) for determination on the merits only if he is satisfied, not merely that the child has committed an offence, but also that compulsory measures of supervision are necessary. In my view such proceedings which are instituted to promote the child’s welfare and have no penal element at all do not involve ‘the determination . . of any criminal charge against’ the child in terms of art 6.’
and ‘the very titles of such codes of criminal law will often reveal that they are indeed concerned essentially with ‘matiere penale’. For instance, in France there is a ‘code penale’, in Italy a ‘codice penale’, in Spain a ‘codigo penal’ and in Germany a ‘Strafgesetzbuch’. It follows that when, in such cases as Ozturk, the court investgiates whether the text defining the offence belongs to criminal law, it is investigating whether the text belongs to an area of the law where proceedings can result in a penalty being imposed.’
Lord Penrose and Lord Macfadyen concluded that the proceedings did not involve the determination of a criminal charge since they were not of a penal character but were designed to promote the welfare of the child. The criminal proceedings against S came to an end when the procurator fiscal decided not to proceed with the charge.
Lord President (Rodger), Lord Penrose, Lord Macfadyen
2001 SC 977
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 52(2)
Scotland
Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.224205
The defendants were accused of using companies as a front for customs fraud. The Customs and Excise sought leave to appeal the terms of a criminal restraint order.
Held: The court when making such an order was entitled to take into account the statutory assumptions about the lifestyle of the defendants. The commissioners’ application to have a receiver appointed would be of no effect unless the receiver would be ready to become substantially involved in the day to day management of the company. They intended a light touch approach but would not achieve what they wanted. Application refused.
Laws, Toulson, Royce JJ
Times 15-Mar-2005
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223735
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own or public expense. The trial had proceeded when the defendant, having failed to put his counsel in funds, appeared unrepresented: ‘… the important word used in section 20(6)(c) is ‘permitted’. He must not be prevented by the State in any of its manifestations, whether judicial or executive, from exercising the right accorded by the subsection. He must be permitted to exercise those rights.’
[1985] AC 956, [1985] 2 All ER 594
Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962 SCh 2 s20(6)(c)
Cited – Gianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
Applied – Dunkley and Robinson v The Queen PC 1-Nov-1994
(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223459
Whether possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life was a continuing offence: ‘The mischief at which the Section is aimed must be that of a person possessing a firearm ready for use, if and when the occasion arises, in a manner which endangers life.’
[1973] QB 357
Cited – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223486
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it.
(1992) 94 Cr App R 51
Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Cited – Regina v Clarke and Fletcher CACD 30-Jul-1997
Hutchison LJ said: ‘The way in which this Court should approach an appeal against conviction, based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is well settled. To succeed the appellant must show first the verdicts are logically inconsistent, and secondly, . .
Cited – Muhib, Regina v CACD 13-Jan-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts,
Held: ‘there is no possible logical inconsistency in the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter in relation to one victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.222830
Renewed application for an extension of time, leave to appeal and a representation order.
[2018] EWCA Crim 598
England and Wales
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.624030
It would be ‘an insult’ to Parliament’s intention to prosecute for one offence when the more proper alternative would be barred by statute, since ‘in substance, if this could be done, you could always evade the statutory limit of time.’
Lord Eldon
6 ER 581, (1829) 1 Dow and Cl 416
Cited – Regina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.216530
The Board was asked how to identify whether an allegation amounted to a criminal one. Lord Atkin said: ‘It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the domain of ‘criminal jurisprudence’; for the domain of criminal jurisprudence can only be ascertained by examining what acts at any particular period are declared by the state to be crimes, and the only common nature they will be found to possess is that they are prohibited by the state and that those who commit them are punished.’ and ‘It certainly is not confined to what was criminal by the law of England or of any Province in 1867. The power must extend to legislation to make new crimes. Criminal law connotes only the quality of such acts or omissions as are prohibited under appropriate penal provisions by authority of the State. The criminal quality of an act cannot be discerned by intuition; nor can it be discovered by reference to any standard but one: is the act prohibited with penal consequences?’
Lord Atkin
[1931] AC 310, 100 LJPC 84
Cited – Attorney-General for Ontario v Hamilton Street Ry Co PC 1903
The phrase ‘Criminal law’ means ‘the criminal law in its widest sense’. The Judicial Committee refused to give its opinion on a number of questions relating to the operation of certain Canadian legislation which purported to prevent ‘the Profanation . .
Cited – Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
Cited – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.200229
The admissibility of evidence of a previous similar complaint against the defendant is not confined to cases where consent is the issue.
[1922] 2 KB 122
Cited – Spooner, Eric Charles v Regina; (Evidence: Sex abuse) CACD 25-May-2004
The defendant appealed his convictions for child sex abuse, involving assault, rape and buggery, saying that evidence of a recent complaint by a schoolgirl friend of the complainant which was not consistent with other evidence of the complainant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198132
The court considered the circumstances under which a court would hear evidence of a similar complaint against the defendant.
Ridley J said: ‘We think, however, if it were a question of the meaning of words, that the better construction of the judgment is that while the Court dealt with the charge in question, as involving in fact, though not in law, the question of consent on the part of the prosecutrix, yet the reasons given for admitting the complaint were two-first, that it was consistent with her story in the witness-box; and, secondly, that it was inconsistent with consent . .’ . . it appears to us that, in accordance with principle, such complaints are admissible, not merely as negativing consent, but because they are consistent with the story of the prosecutrix. In all ordinary cases, indeed, the principle must be observed which rejects statements made by anyone in the prisoner’s absence. Charges of this kind form an exceptional class, and in them such statements ought, under proper safeguards, to be admitted. Their consistency with the story told is, from the very nature of such cases, of special importance. Did the woman make a complaint at once? If so, that is consistent with her story. Did she not do so? That is inconsistent. And in either case the matter is important for the jury.’ and ‘It is only to cases of this kind that the authorities on which our judgment rests apply; and our judgment also is to them restricted. It applies only where there is a complaint not elicited by questions of a leading and inducing or intimidating character, and only when-it is made at the first opportunity after the offence which reasonably offers itself. Within such bounds, we think the evidence should be put before the jury, the judge being careful to inform the jury that the statement is not evidence of the facts complained of, and must not be regarded by them, if believed, as other than corroborative of the complainant’s credibility, and, when consent is in issue, of the absence of consent. ‘
Ridley J
[1905] 1 KB 551
Cited – Spooner, Eric Charles v Regina; (Evidence: Sex abuse) CACD 25-May-2004
The defendant appealed his convictions for child sex abuse, involving assault, rape and buggery, saying that evidence of a recent complaint by a schoolgirl friend of the complainant which was not consistent with other evidence of the complainant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198131
It is preferable, in an ordinary case, for an application for a search warrant in a solicitor’s office to be made on notice. However, if a solicitor under investigation were to have knowledge of what was contemplated the material sought might disappear or be tampered with before it could be seen by the investigator, a judge might be persuaded that an ex parte application was appropriate and necessary.
Neill LJ said: ‘There is . . . a very powerful argument in support of the proposition that a warrant issued under section 9 schedule 1 of the 1984 Act should, however wide its scope, contain some express condition to exclude items subject to legal privilege.’
Judge Savill QC, Neill LJ
[1991] COD 119, (1991) CLR 559
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10
Cited – Miller Gardner Solicitors, Regina (on the Application of) v Minshull Street Crown Court Admn 20-Dec-2002
Police investigating crime obtained a warrant to search a solicitor’s offices for details of their clients. The solicitors appealed.
Held: The details required, namely dates of contacts with a certain telephone number were not legally . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co Admn 12-May-1999
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197744
The solicitor applicant challenged the grant of a search order under section 9.
Held: The order was quashed. The court underlined the need for judges to be scrupulous in discharging their responsibilities so as to ensure that use of the procedures, which constitute a serious inroad upon the liberty of the subject, are not abused. In addition the court made clear that fulfilment of each part of the relevant conditions is a matter of substance. The reasons for authorising the seizure must be made clear and applications without notice must be fully justified. As to section 9: ‘The special procedure under section 9 and schedule 1 is a serious inroad upon the liberty of the subject. The responsibility for ensuring that the procedure is not abused lies with circuit judges. It is of cardinal importance that circuit judges should be scrupulous in discharging that responsibility. The responsibility is greatest when the circuit judge is asked to issue a warrant under paragraph 12. It is essential that the reason for authorising the seizure is made clear. The preferred method of obtaining material for a police investigation should always be by way of an inter partes order under paragraph 4, after notice of application has been served under paragraph 8. An ex parte application under paragraph 12 must never become a matter of common form and satisfaction as to fulfilment of the conditions is an important matter of substance.’
Lloyd LJ
[1988] Crim LR 384
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10
England and Wales
Cited – Miller Gardner Solicitors, Regina (on the Application of) v Minshull Street Crown Court Admn 20-Dec-2002
Police investigating crime obtained a warrant to search a solicitor’s offices for details of their clients. The solicitors appealed.
Held: The details required, namely dates of contacts with a certain telephone number were not legally . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co Admn 12-May-1999
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and . .
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 – Faisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.197743
It was out of the question for the court to entertain any challenge after the trial to a verdict which had been delivered and agreed to by the jurors as their verdict. This was settled law in Scotland.
Lord President Inglis
(1890) 17 R 1157
Scotland
Approved – Stewart v Fraser 1830
The court asked under what circumstances it would be permitted to enquire as to a jury’s deliberations. The court approved the description in Hume’s Commentaries. . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192272
The court refused to receive evidence that two Welsh-speaking jurors at Merioneth Quarter Sessions did not have sufficient knowledge of English to enable them to follow the proceedings.
Lord Atkin
[1933] 2 KB 489
England and Wales
Not Followed – Ras Behari Lal v King-Emperor PC 1933
It was alleged that a juror had been unable to understand sufficient English to follow the trial.
Held: The rule against enquiring into the events in the jury room has an exception where there are external events which may have affected them. . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192275
(Canada) the court considered the reasons underlying the need for secrecy of a jury’s deliberations: ‘The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred. This rationale is of vital importance to the potential acquittal of an unpopular accused, or one charged with a particularly repulsive crime. In my view, this rationale is sound, and does not require empirical confirmation. The Court of Appeal also placed considerable weight on the second rationale for the secrecy rule: the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement. That rationale is more abstract, and inevitably invites the question of why the finality of the verdict should prevail over its integrity in cases where that integrity is seriously put in issue. In a legal environment such as ours, which provides for generous review of judicial decisions on appeal, and which does not perceive the voicing of dissenting opinions on appeal as a threat to the authority of the law, I do not consider that finality, standing alone, is a convincing rationale for requiring secrecy. The respondent, as well as the interveners supporting its position and, in particular, the Attorney General of Quebec, place great emphasis on the third main rationale for the jury secrecy rule – the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals. Our system of jury selection is sensitive to the privacy interests of prospective jurors (see R v Williams [1998] 1 SCR 1128), and the proper functioning of the jury system, a constitutionally protected right in serious criminal charges, depends upon the willingness of jurors to discharge their functions honestly and honourably. This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy. I am fully satisfied that a considerable measure of secrecy surrounding the deliberations of the jury is essential to the proper functioning of that important institution and that the preceding rationales serve as a useful guide to the boundaries between the competing demands of secrecy and reviewability.’
Arbour J
[2001] 2 SCR 344
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192267
The trial judge had drawn an adverse inference under article 3. The defendant complained that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had simply tested the prosecution case.
Held: ‘in this case it cannot be said that the accused ‘relied on a fact in his defence’ within the meaning of article 3(1)(a) because all that defence counsel did was to probe the prosecution case, without suggesting a fact which the accused relied on to a prosecution witness’.
Hutton LCJ
Unreported, 13 May 1992
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3
Northern Ireland
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192244
It was alleged that a juror had been unable to understand sufficient English to follow the trial.
Held: The rule against enquiring into the events in the jury room has an exception where there are external events which may have affected them. The conviction must be set aside on the ground that the effect of the jury’s inability to understand the language was to deny the accused persons an essential part of the protection afforded to them by law, and that the result of the trial was a miscarriage of justice.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The question whether a juror is competent for physical or other reasons to understand the proceedings is not a question which invades the privacy of the discussions in the jury box or in the retiring room. It does not seek to inquire into the reasons for a verdict.’ and ‘Finality is a good thing; but justice is a better.’
Lord Atkin
(1933) 50 TLR 1, (1933) 60 IA 354
Commonwealth
Not Followed – Rex v Thomas CCA 1933
The court refused to receive evidence that two Welsh-speaking jurors at Merioneth Quarter Sessions did not have sufficient knowledge of English to enable them to follow the proceedings. . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Approved – Lalchan Nanan v The State PC 1986
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might . .
Cited – Cart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192251
The court considered whether events outside the jury room having possible effects on deliberations might leave those open to enquiry. The jury bailiff had told the jury of the accused’s previous convictions. This was a grave irregularity, was admissible, and the conviction was quashed.
(1969) 53 Cr App R 466
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Pintori, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of class A drugs, saying that the drugs found had belonged to somebody who had stayed at his flat whilst he had been away. One of the jurors later told a police officer that she had known through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192253
A conviction was set aside where the judge had invited the jury to take account of the defendant’s failure to give evidence.
(1943) 29 Cr App R 128, [1944] K B 80
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192241
The court asked under what circumstances it would be permitted to enquire as to a jury’s deliberations. The court approved the description in Hume’s Commentaries.
Lord Chief Commissioner Adam
(1830) 5 Murray 166
Scotland
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Approved – Pirie v Caledonian Railway Company 1890
It was out of the question for the court to entertain any challenge after the trial to a verdict which had been delivered and agreed to by the jurors as their verdict. This was settled law in Scotland. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192254
The defendant’s conviction was found unsafe because of the judge’s adverse comments on his silence.
[1933] 1 KB 685, (1932) 23 Cr App R 177
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192242
D appealed a conviction after direction under s34.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Section 34 is designed, in part at any rate and perhaps principally, to deal with the sort of situation which not infrequently arises where a defence is advanced which has never been previously indicated even though there was sufficient opportunity to do so, as from the provisions we have read make clear would be the case where there has been an interview under caution. It is to allow the jury, in a proper case and subject to safeguards, to draw an inference from the fact that the defence advanced at trial has not been previously entered, the obvious inference being in many such cases that it was or is a sprung defence, that is a recently made up, or improvised defence. It is not the truth or otherwise of the explanation which is the chief concern of the jury, it is the fact that it has not been mentioned previously which may in an appropriate case allow the jury to draw an inference that it is a recent invention, thus assisting the jury to its ultimate conclusion as to whether or not the explanation offered at trial is true or false. That is how the prosecution attempted to employ the provisions of this section at the trial of Hearne and it was in that context that the learned judge directed the jury as he did.’
Unreported 4 May 2000
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Qualified – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192246
The Attorney General sought an order of contempt of court at common law following the publication in the ‘New Statesman’ of a juror’s account of significant parts of the jury’s deliberations in the course of arriving at their verdict in the trial of the prominent politician, Jeremy Thorpe.
Held: The application failed. The contents of the article did not justify the title of contempt of court. There were no special circumstances, other than publication of some of the secrets of the jury room, that called for condemnation. Lord Widgery CJ added: ‘That does not mean that we would not wish to see restrictions on the publication of such an article because we would.’
Lord Widgery CJ
[1981] QB 1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd Admn 13-May-2009
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192250
An affidavit was submitted to say that a juror had known, independently, of the defendant’s previous convictions. The juror’s knowledge came from acquaintance with the mother of the prisoner’s wife.
Held: The conviction was upheld. Events in a jury room might be investigated where they may have been affected by external events. However, the conviction was not to be quashed merely by reason of the existence of this knowledge.
[1968] 1 WLR 773, [1968] 2 All ER 56
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192252
D argued that the words ‘any fact relied on in his defence’ in article 3 meant that it could apply only where a fact which the accused relied on was advanced by the accused in the witness box at the trial, or by a witness called at the trial on behalf of the accused. He also argued that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had merely relied on the weakness of the prosecution case.
Held: ‘art 3 permits the court to draw an inference, not only at the trial in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, but also by virtue of art 3(2)(a) in determining ‘whether there is a case to answer’ . . the trial judge can draw an inference against the accused in ruling on an application by the accused for a direction that he has no case to answer before the accused, or any witness on his behalf, has been called to give evidence.’ and ‘at a trial the accused can ‘rely on a fact in his defence’ within the meaning of art 3 even though neither he nor a witness called on his behalf has given evidence of that fact.’
Hutton LCJ, Higgins and Carswell JJ
[1992] NI 168
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3
Northern Ireland
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192243
Jury – Enquiry
[1991] Crim LR 843
Cited – Regina v Young (Stephen) CACD 30-Dec-1994
Jury Consulting Ouija Board – Serious Irregularity
It had been suggested that during their overnight stay in a hotel after retiring to consider their verdict, some of the jurors had consultated an ouija board to consult with the deceased, and to ask him who had been his killer. Having believed that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192266
Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for the inference if that matter is agreed to be true.
Unreported, 10 December 1999
Criiminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 834
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192245
A judge is not entitled in any circumstances to suggest to a jury, when a man refuses to answer any questions after having been cautioned, that, if he were innocent, it is likely that he would have answered the questions.
(1959) 43 Cr App R 215
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192240
(New South Wales – Australia) Darley CJ said: ‘I have come to the conclusion that the authorities are all one way, and that the Court cannot look at the affidavits of jurymen for any purpose, whether it be for the purpose of granting a new trial, or for the purpose of establishing the misconduct of a juryman’.
Darley CJ
(1907) 7 NSWSR 290
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192269
The court laid down the need for a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof required.
(1983) Crim LR 475
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.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192068
Discussing the need for a judge not to sum up too strongly against a defendant: ‘in England a man is entitled to a fair trial by jury on any offence which is indictable. It does not matter how absurd the defence is, or how unlikely it is that any sensible person would pay the least attention to it. A prisoner is entitled to make his defence to the jury, and it is for the jury and not for the Judge to decide on its weight. The Judge has no power to stop a defence and say: ‘This is an absurd defence and I will not let you put it before the jury’. When we find that the learned Judge, owing entirely to the initial mistake, has really prevented the jury from trying the prisoner fairly and squarely on the evidence by repeating over and over again: ‘This is an absurd defence, there is no foundation for this allegation against his wife, and the truth is, as you will find in a minute, that the prisoner did assault his wife’, that is not a trial at all according to our methods and understanding. It is a mistrial. We find it quite impossible to say, if this incident had not happened and if the jury had been properly directed, what they would have done, and we cannot speculate. What we do know is that the law of this country is that a prisoner is entitled to take his chance of finding a stupid jury and is entitled to put his defence before the jury with a view to persuading them to acquit him.’
Humphreys J
(1945) 30 Cr App R 143
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.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192077
Where the charge is one of murder, no other charge may be added to the indictment.
[1918] 1 KB 416
England and Wales
Disapproved – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192059
The court considered the admission of medical evidence to support other evidence against a defendant as to his propensity. ‘But we conclude on the authorities as they now stand that the expert evidence of a psychiatrist or a psychologist may properly be admitted if it is to the effect that a defendant is suffering from a condition not properly described as mental illness, but from a personality disorder so severe as properly to be categorised as mental disorder.’
[1993] 96 Crim App R 1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Turner (Terence) CACD 1974
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He admitted that he had killed his girlfriend with a hammer, but sought to bring psychiatric evidence that he was susceptible to provocation.
Held: The law jealously guards the role of . .
Cited – Pinfold, Mackenney v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2003
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant . .
Cited – Regina v O’Brien; Regina v Hall; Regina v Sherwood CACD 16-Feb-2000
It is proper for the court to admit psychiatric evidence of a defendant’s particular readiness to make false confessions. Such evidence should however be closely circumscribed, and should include for example, that it makes the evidence gained . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190488
The court gave guidance on the proper approach of an appellate court to an application to adduce fresh evidence is contained in the judgment of the English Court of Appeal: ‘Proffered fresh evidence in written form is likely to be in one of three categories: plainly capable of belief; plainly incapable of belief, and possibly capable of belief. Without hearing the witness, evidence in the first category will usually be received and evidence in the second category will usually not be received. In relation to evidence in the third category, it may be necessary for this Court to hear the witness de bene esse in order to determine whether the evidence is capable of belief. That course is frequently followed in this Court.’
Rose LJ
[2000] 2 Cr App R 431
England and Wales
Cited – Shaw, Henry, Boreland, Mullings and Wright v The Queen PC 15-Oct-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed convictions for three capital murders, saying that an eye witness’ statement had not been disclosed at trial or admitted on appeal. This evidence descrinbed the assailants as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190039
The reference was for an unduly lenient sentence for offences of gross indecency with a child and attempted rape.
Held: Even experienced judges could be unaware of guideline cases. In this case Millberry and the Reference 91 etc of 2002 would have guided the judge to impose different sentences. Prosecuting counsel should attend court with knowledge of the guideline cases, and be ready to provide the court with copies as necessary.
Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ
Times 12-Dec-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 3731
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 91, 119 and 120 of 2002) CACD 7-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .
Cited – Regina v Pepper, Regina v Barber, etc CACD 28-Apr-2005
Each defendant appealed against the imposition of an extended sentence of imprisonment.
Held: The The provisions were unduly complicated and about to change again. Courts would see their way clear by focussing on the offence for which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189892
At the start of the day after the jury retirement, one juror was late. The defendant complained that the jury had not all been present during the deliberations.
Held: There was no magic in any particular form of words. The jury should be clear that they should only discuss the matter after the bailiffs had been sworn, and whilst they were all together. The court had to ask what was the risk that a proper verdict had not been reached. No injustice had been caused.
Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ
Times 12-Dec-2003
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Oliver (Ian) CACD 6-Dec-1995
Detailed guidance was given on directions when a jury are to be allowed to split up overnight after retiring using the court’s discretion under s43, including ‘1. That the jury must decide the case on the evidence and the arguments which they have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189895
In the police station, the defendant had declined to answer police question, but had instead provided a written statement.
Held: The practice had the danger that if, at trial, he discovered that something had been omitted from the statement, an inference might be sought to be drawn under the section. Here the written statement broadly accorded with the evidence he gave at trial, but there was one difference. The judge had invited the jury to draw an adverse inference merely from the defendant’s failure to answer questions. That should have been limited to his failure to mention facts. The conviction was unsafe. In the case of such inconsistencies, it might be better for a judge to ask the jury to treat that earlier statement as a lie.
Scott Bakler LJ, Henriques J, Stanley Burton J
Times 14-Nov-2003
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188681
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. Lord Justice General (Emslie) said: ‘the question for us is whether on 25 January 1980 the risk of prejudice as the result of these publications was then so grave that even the careful directions of the trial judge could not reasonably be expected to remove it. In our opinion that question falls to be answered in the negative. The publications occurred almost four months before the trial diet was called. In considering the effect of these publications at the date of trial the court was well entitled to bear in mind that the public memory of newspaper articles and news broadcasts and of their detailed contents is notoriously short and, that being so, that the residual risk of prejudice to the prospects of fair trial for the applicants could reasonably be expected to be removed by careful directions such as those which were in the event given by the trial Judge.’
Lord Justice General (Emslie)
[1980] CLY 3011, 1980 JC 111
Applied – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187400
In order to use the power to issue a warrant of commitment, committing the defaulter to custody, the court must conduct a fair and public hearing to decide what is the appropriate order to make in all the circumstances. The power to issue the warrant is discretionary. Such a warrant is a mode of enforcement of last resort.
[1991] 1 WLR 395
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187183
[1991] CLY 4657
Overruled – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187401
[1985] CLY 3934
England and Wales
Overruled – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187397
[1989] CLY 4029
Overruled – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187398
Where objectionable evidence has been left for the consideration of the jury without any warning to disregard it, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the conviction, if it thinks that the jury may have been influenced by it, even though without it there was evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.
[1910] 1 KB 149
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184206
Channell J said: ‘the moment you have decided to charge him and practically got him into custody, then, inasmuch as a judge even cannot ask a question or a magistrate, it is ridiculous to suppose that a policeman can. But there is no actual authority yet that if a policeman does ask a question it is inadmissible; what happens is that the judge says it is not advisable to press the matter.’ (approved on appeal)
Channell J
(1910) 5 Criminal Appeal Reports 179
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184200
The court excluded the answers of a prisoner in custody, on the authority of R. v. Gavin, saying that the constable was entrapping the prisoner and trying by a trick to set a broken-down case on its legs again.
Hawkins, J.
(1898) 19 Cox 16
Applied – Regina v Gavin 1888
The court excluded a statement made to a constable, who questioned his prisoner in a way that amounted to cross-examination. A constable has no right to ask questions without expressly saying that the answers cannot be relevant evidence. . .
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184196
Statements were rejected, because they had been obtained from the accused before arrest by means of a long interrogation by a person in authority over him. The court adverted thus to the case of questions put by a constable after arresting:- ‘when he has taken anyone into custody . . he ought not to question the prisoner . . I am not aware of any distinct rule of evidence that, if such improper questions are asked, the answers to them are inadmissible, but there is clear authority for saying that the judge at the trial may in his discretion refuse to allow the answers to be given in evidence.’
Channell, J
(1905) 20 Cox 711
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184199
(1880) LR 7 QBD 150
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184188
The court refused to consider the affidavits of five jurymen to decide whether a fellow juryman had been guilty of misconduct. The allegation was that before any evidence was given the juror in question made it clear to fellow jurors that whatever the evidence he was not prepared to convict.
Held: The court concluded that the authorities are all one way, and that the Court cannot look at the affidavits of jurymen for any purpose, whether it be for the purpose of granting a new trial, or for the purpose of establishing the misconduct of a juryman.
Darley CJ
(1907) 7 NSW State Reports 290
Cited – Regina v BM and Another CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183498
Where the trial judge has warned the jury not to act upon the objectionable evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal under the similar words of the Act, may refuse to interfere, if it thinks that the jury, giving heed to that warning, would have returned the same verdict
(1910) 2 KB 501
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184205
The court considered the intent of section 6(3) of the 1967 Act. Lawton LJ said: ‘Before the passing of the 1967 Act, the law (on alternative verdicts) was partly to be found in the common law and partly in a number of statutes. At common law on an indictment charging felony the accused could be convicted of a less aggravated felony of which the ingredients were included in the felony charged and similarly as regards misdemeanours: but except under statute a conviction for a misdemeanour was not allowed on a charge of felony. The object of the section was to provide a general rule continuing and combining the rules of common law and the provisions of most of the statutes which enabled alternative verdicts to be returned in specific cases or types of cases.’
The test to be applied is this: ‘This can be shown by striking out of the indictment all the averments which had not been proved -the ‘red pencil test’.’
Lawton LJ
(1972) 56 Cr App R 573, [1972] 2 QB 236
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183250
The absence or insufficiency of a shorthand note is not of itself a ground upon which a prisoner can succeed upon appeal, nor the existence of a proper note a condition precedent to a good trial. Where, however, there is reason to suspect that there is something wrong in connection with the hearing of a case, the absence or insufficiency of a proper shorthand note may be material.
Channell J
(1909) 2 Cr App R 171
Cited – Regina v Le Caer CACD 1972
The judge’s notes had gone missing before the appeal.
Held: Applying Ellkiott, the simple fact that there is no shorthand note is not a ground for saying that the conviction is unsafe or unsatisfactory. For the appellant to claim that he must . .
Cited – Bertrand Roberts and Roland Roberts v The State PC 15-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellants had been convicted of murder and their capital sentences commuted. They now sought to challenge the convictions as to the admission of and directions given on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182415
Wretched parents were accused of murder after their children starved to death. The court was asked whether they should be tried together: ‘The rule is, that it is a matter for the discretion of the judge at the trial whether two people jointly indicted should be tried together or separately but the judge must exercise his discretion judicially.’ If a single transaction is said to have been one in which a number have participated, it is desirable that one jury should hear the whole of the matter and give its verdicts as to who was involved and, when the charges give scope, the extent of their involvement.
Darling J
(1918) 13 Cr App R 134
England and Wales
Cited – Airedale NHS Trust v Bland HL 4-Feb-1993
Procedures on Withdrawal of Life Support Treatment
The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
Mentioned – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Cited – Regina v Pieterson; Regina v H CACD 8-Nov-1994
The defendants appealed against their convictions for robbery. A dog had been used to follow scents from the scene, picking up items taken in the raid. The defendants objected to admission of evidence of the dog’s activities and reliability.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180378
To assist the smooth flow of court work, and in the interests of open justice counsel should, in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, be ready to disclose their skeleton arguments in advance. This might not apply, for example, on applications for public interest immunity certificates, but would avoid the need for court time to be lost listening to them being read out.
Judge, LJ
Times 10-Mar-2003
England and Wales
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180085
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 suicide. The stated aim of the booklet was to help readers overcome the fear of dying.
Held: The offence would be committed only in the particular circumstances of the booklet being supplied to a particular individual considering suicide and with the intent of assisting or encouraging him. The offence was not committed by the general distribution of the booklet. However the court should also be reluctant to make declarations in advance as to the legality or otherwise of particular acts. That risked usurping the function of the court which considered a particular set of circumstances.
Woolf LJ
[1983] 3 WLR 845, [1984] 1 QB 795, [1984] 1 All ER 277
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General HL 1980
The applicant sought a declaration as to the lawfulness of a lottery scheme whilst criminal proceedings were pending against it for the same scheme.
Held: It was not necessary to decide whether a declaration as to the criminality or otherwise . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Bastow 1957
The case involved an attempt by a local authority to enforce planning control by a relator action requiring the removal of caravans on land in breach of planning control. The use of the service of stop notices, are supported by the power of the . .
Cited – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers HL 26-Jul-1977
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Cited – I-CD Publishing Ltd v The Secretary of State, The Information Commissioner (Interested Party) Admn 21-Jul-2003
The claimant sought judicial review challenging the restrictions on the sale of electoral registers to registered credit reference agencies. Following Robertson (1) the new regulations created two registers, and the claimant sought to be able to . .
Cited – Rusbridger and Another v Attorney General CA 20-Mar-2002
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act.
Held: . .
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
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 v RL and JF CACD 28-Aug-2008
Club, not members, prosecutable for breach
The Environment Agency appealed against dismissal of charges against the defendants who were officers in an unincorporated members’ golf club on whose land there had been pollution. The judge had ruled that the unincorporated association could have . .
Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.174704
D complained that the judge had relied upon an inference under section 34 when holding that he had a case to answer.
Held: The judge was wrong to do so: ‘The sort of circumstances we conceive to which paragraph (c) of subsection (2) [of section 34] applies are, for example, where the defence has involved putting a positive case on behalf of the appellant, perhaps supported by documents or whatever it may be, or, a more likely example perhaps, where the defendant has chosen to refuse to answer questions when initially interviewed but some time later, after consulting his solicitor, has produced a prepared statement or has given later answers. It does not apply in circumstances such as obtained in the present case where nothing had been relied on by the defence which could bring the section into play.’
Hutchison LJ
[1998] EWCA Crim 1304
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34(2)(c)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.154178
There was an additional burden on a judge in a case involving very old allegations of sexual abuse to use his imprimatur to emphasise to the jury the additional difficulties faced by a defendant and the high burden of proof.
Gazette 08-Jul-1998, Times 20-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 2012
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v M and Others CACD 2-Sep-1999
Evidence of the proper background to the offence was normally admissible, even if this revealed previous offences by the defendant, and despite the fact that such offences might not be admissible on a similar fact basis. Where the jury could not . .
Cited – Siddall and Brooke, Regina v CACD 15-Jun-2006
The court considered cases referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Each related to convictions for sexual assaults on children in care. New material including several untrue allegations by the complainants suggested that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.154886
The applicant had claimed compensation for unlawful detention and mistreatment during that detention; although the proceedings were civil in nature, they were governed by the code of criminal procedure. The applicant was not given an oral hearing before the first instance court which was responsible for establishing the facts and assessing the compensation; Turkey sought to rely on the fact that there could have been an oral hearing before the Court of Cassation and, as the applicant had not sought a hearing before that Court, he had waived his right.
Held: The Grand Chamber, divided, found that the denial of an oral hearing breached Article 6. An integral part of his case was that during the three days he was wrongfully held in police custody he was ill treated, endured personal suffering and harm and that; ‘He was never given the opportunity to explain orally to a court in the context of an adversarial procedure the injustice which had been done to him and his family. According to the applicant had he been given the opportunity to state his case to the domestic courts they would have been persuaded of the reality of the suffering which he and his family endured and of the harm caused to his reputation’. The court set out the criteria for allowing a case not to be heard in public: ‘That case law lays down three criteria for determining whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify dispensing with a public hearing; there must be no factual or legal issue which requires a hearing; the questions which the court is required to answer must be limited in scope and no public interest must be at stake.’ As to the waiver argument: ‘ . . Even assuming that Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure could have provided the basis for a request for a hearing before the Court of Cassation, the crucial question is whether the applicant should have been afforded a hearing before the Karsiyaka Assize Court, the tribunal which was responsible for establishing the fact of the case and assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant. To the extent that the Government imply this, the applicant cannot be considered to have waived his right to an oral hearing by failing to request one before the Court of Cassation since that court did not have full jurisdiction to substitute its own view of the amount of compensation which should be awarded to the applicant for that of the first-instance court (see mutatis mutandis, Diennet v France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A nn.325-A, p.15, ss 34 [21 EHHR 554]) Having regard to the above considerations, the Court will examine whether there were any exceptional circumstances which justified dispensing with an oral hearing on the applicant’s compensation claim.’
35-37, ECHR 2002-V, 36590/97
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.165970
Where the prosecutor intended to apply to extend the custody the time limit, he should not be required to produce full documentation in the same way as for the trial itself. Nevertheless, he should produce enough information, according to the circumstances, to allow the defendant properly to prepare his own submissions for the application. The Human Rights Act must to be taken into account. Article 6 has no direct relevance, but article 5 does. The approach may differ from case to case. The application for an extension could be more informal than the normal trial process. It was therefore unnecessary to comply with formal rules of evidence. The burden lay upon the Crown who had to satisfy the magistrates that the application was proper and to put the defendant into a position to allow him to test the appropriateness of the application.
The Lord Chief Justice said that ECHR jurisprudence could not and should not be applied directly to the procedures in the English jurisdiction: ‘whether access to documents is to be granted, and when it is to be granted, must depend upon the particular domestic procedure which is being brought into play in proceedings before the courts in this jurisdiction’.
As to the custody time limits, Lord Woolf said: ‘it is to be hoped that in the majority of cases it is will be possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to make information available to a defendant, prior to the application being made, which will enable him or her to be satisfied as to the propriety of the application. Insofar as it is necessary for a defendant to test any aspect of the application, then the means must be provided to enable him or her to do that. However, formal disclosure of the sort which is appropriate prior to the trial will not normally be necessary in regard to an application either for bail or for an extension of time limits.’
Lord Woolf LCJ
Times 08-Feb-2001
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara Admn 21-Jun-2001
The Director challenged the decision of the magistrates to stay a prosecution of the defendant as an abuse of process. The defendant had been interviewed without a solicitor. He went away to seek legal advice. The solicitor requested a copy of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90499
A prison adjudication in relation to an escaped prisoner did not prevent subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of the same escape
[1960] 2 QB 513
England and Wales
Cited – Robinson, Regina v CACD 14-Jun-2017
The appellant had escaped from custody between conviction and sentence. After re-arrest he was charged with absconding, but also sentenced at prison to an additional term for escaping. He now claimed autrefois convict.
Held: The decision of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598730
After a juror had been discharged during the jury’s retirement, the judge directed the remaining members as follows: ‘I do not know and I am not going to enquire as to whether the juror whom I have discharged took part to any great extent in the discussions which you have had but, if she did, then you must put aside from your decisions anything that she may have to contribute to your discussions because you are now eleven and it is now a decision of eleven of you, uninfluenced by anything else, that now matters in this case.’
Held: Moses LJ said ‘We question the correctness of the judge’s directions to the jury that they should put aside from their consideration anything that the juror he discharged may have had to contribute to the discussion. That may be a direction which it is impossible or, indeed, wrong for the jury to obey. It will particularly be impossible in a case . . where the juror, prior to discharge, may well have contributed to a verdict of guilty when verdicts were delivered on different occasions.’ He went on: ‘But we do not think that that particular direction in the instant case leads to the conclusion that the verdicts are unsafe.’
Moses LJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 1041
England and Wales
Cited – Carter, Regina v CACD 4-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his convictions on allegations of mortgage fraud conspiracy. Two jurors had been discharged after retirement, and the defendant Said that the remaining jurors should have been warned not to take account of any comments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597255
The non-disclosure of material evidence in the trial proceedings was held to have been remedied by the Court of Appeal’s examination of the impact of the non-disclosure upon the safety of the conviction.
(2003) 36 EHRR CD 221
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597512