A prisoner who was detained ‘during HM pleasure’ is to be allowed to see all reports before the Parole Board considering his release save those for which Public Interest Immunity Certificate has been given.
Times 27-Apr-1993, Independent 11-Jun-1993
Criminal Justice Act 1967 4, Criminal Justice Act 1991 34
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87819
Decision on the issue of costs following the withdrawal of the claimant’s application for judicial review on agreed terms. The issue arises in unusual if not unique circumstances. The question is whether the claimant is entitled, as part of her costs of the judicial review proceedings, to recover the costs of intervening in unconnected proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
[2020] EWHC 1292 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.651051
Renewed applications for judicial review in each of which the claimants challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute.
The principle of the separation of powers leads to the adoption of a ‘very strict self-denying ordinance’.
Sir John Thomas P QBD, Simon J
[2013] EWHC 1752 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.511038
Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission of conviction of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing a class A drug, Ecstasy – use of public interest immunity orders – allegation of prosecutorial withholding of evidence from the court on applying.
Held: Allowed
[2000] EWCA Crim 101, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 13, [2001] Crim LR 813
England and Wales
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.331149
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The NSW statute required that an indictment should be signed by any one of a number of persons specified in the section, including a person authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions to sign indictments, and empowered the DPP by order in writing to authorise persons to sign indictments for him and on his behalf. The defendant said that his indictment had been signed by a barrister in private practice and not authorised by the DPP. Defence Counsel argued that Sections 1 and 2 of the 1933 Act require a bill of indictment to be signed by the proper officer before it can become an indictment. The task of the court is to ascertain from the terms of the Act what Parliament intended the consequence to be if a bill of indictment is not duly signed. Setting aside extraordinary facts such as those considered in R v Jackson, the answer is clear: if a bill is not signed, it does not become an indictment; if there is no indictment, there can be no valid trial on indictment. Parliament did not intend that a defendant could be tried on indictment without an indictment.
Held: The submission was correct, the indictment was invalid and teh appeals succeeded.
Spigelman CJ Wood CJ at CL Hunt AJA Howie J Johnson J
(2005) 64 NSWLR 10, [2005] NSWCCA 281
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)
Australia
Cited – Regina v Morais CACD 1988
A High Court judge had given leave to prefer a voluntary bill against the appellant, who was arraigned on six counts in the voluntary bill. He pleaded not guilty, was convicted on four counts and was sentenced. Relying on section 2 of the 1933 Act, . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.267624
The Crown Court is a single court.
Hooper J
(2000) 164 JP 729
England and Wales
Cited – R, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266480
The applicant challenged his continued detention. He had been convicted of offences and was to be deported, but it was considered unsafe to return him to Iraq, and also that he would abscond if released.
[2008] EWCA Civ 307
England and Wales
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266497
[2008] EWHC 469 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.266226
Kerr J said: ‘If there were in the last analysis no more in this case than a quiet peaceful gathering on the lawn (in front of the premises of the United States Embassy) of persons shouting slogans and carrying placards of the kind in question here, with no risk of intrusion or damage to the premises, I would have some doubt whether there was any basis for believing that such action in such a place could reasonably amount to impairing the dignity of the mission, which is, after all, a political body. As such, it must presumably accommodate itself to the existence of strong disagreement with some of the policies of its government and to the direct and forceful verbal expressions of such disapproval. I appreciate that something may turn on the closeness of those concerned to the premises and on the extravagance or insulting nature of the language used, but, for myself, I would like to keep this whole subject open until, if ever, it arises for decision.’
‘So far as the courts are concerned, when offences are alleged to have been committed and the police make arrests and prosecutions follow, the role of the courts is simply to decide the question of guilt or innocence and the penalty to be imposed in the event of a finding of guilt. It is for other parts of the structure of democratic institutions in society to deal with the problems, if any, of selective law-enforcement.’
Kerr J
(1970) 17 FLR 305
Australia
Cited – Aziz v Aziz and others CA 11-Jul-2007
The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.254617
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of theft – refusal to admit bad character evidence – basis for interfering with finding of fact.
Held: The court will not usually interfere with findings of fact by magistrates unless there was no evidence to support those findings or they were such that no reasonable magistrates, directing themselves property and applying the proper considerations, could reach them
[2007] EWHC 90 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Jenkins v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 22-May-2020
Short term possession of stun gun
The appellant challenged the decision of the justices finding him guilty on summary conviction of an offence of possession of a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of electrical current for incapacitation contrary to s. 5(1)(b) and Schedule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.248935
The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals by way case stated against the decision of the Lay Justices by which they refused an application by the prosecution to amend two charges alleging common assault to add the words, ‘by beating.’
[2020] EWHC 859 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650930
The court permitted the reading at trial of a statement by a witness who had been deposed before a coroner but who was absent at trial after being detained by the means or procurement of the defendant incriminated by the statement.
(1666) 6 St Trials 770
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.270040
[1869] EngR 37, (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 177, (1869) 16 ER 693
Australia
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.280606
Whether it is appropriate for a court to make an order pursuant to section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to confer anonymity on children or young persons in respect of whom an anti-social behaviour order has been made pursuant to section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
[2002] EWHC 1129 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.227939
The court asked whena jury might be allowed to change a verdict delivered.
(1824) 1 Moody CC 45
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.192260
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, since the defendant had been convicted of other offences which would stand.
Bingham LCJ: ‘It is plain, as we read the authorities, that there is no inflexible rule on this subject, but the general practice is plainly one which sets its face against the reopening of convictions in such circumstances. Counsel submits – and in our judgment correctly submits – that the practice of the Court has in the past, in this and comparable situations, been to eschew undue technicality and ask whether any substantial injustice has been done.’
Bingham LCJ
Times 06-Aug-1996, Gazette 02-Oct-1996, Times 02-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 234
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v Mitchell CACD 1977
The court considered the effect of changes in the law after a conviction on applications for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Lane LJ said: ‘This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It should be . .
Distinguished. – Regina v Cooke CACD 2-Dec-1996
The defendant had been convicted upon his admission, and sentenced a later decision in another case indicated that the basis of his plea might be wrong. He sought permission to apply for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
Cited – Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
Cited – Smith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
Applied – Regina v Dundon CMAC 18-Mar-2004
The defendant had been convicted under a system of trial later confirmed not to be compliant with the need for a fair trial.
Held: The judge advocate in this trial had been a serving officer. Unless the positive obligation to show an . .
Cited – Steele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
Cited – Regina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.86831
Six men robbed the bank manager and his assistant of monies in a safe in the vault of the bank premises. Two days later the appellant paid part of the proceeds of the robbery into two banks, located nearby to the vicinity of the robbery. Wax seals used by the bank were found in the appellant’s flat, a piece of which matched a piece found outside the bank. On being arraigned, the appellant pleaded not guilty to counts of conspiracy to rob (Count 1) and armed robbery (Count 2), but guilty to a count of receiving stolen goods (Count 3). The appellant stood trial three times on that indictment. At the first trial, Widgery J refused to accept the plea of guilty to Count 3 and ordered a not guilty plea to be entered. That jury could not agree on a verdict and were discharged. At the second trial Lawton J refused to accept that plea of guilty. That jury was also discharged. At the third trial, Lawton J ordered Count 3 to be severed from the indictment. Having been discharged from entering a verdict in respect of Count 1, the jury found the appellant guilty of Count 2. It was argued for the appellant that Widgery J had erred in refusing to accept the plea of guilty to Count 3 and in ordering that a plea of not guilty be entered. Having been found guilty of receiving the stolen goods, subsequently the appellant could not be tried for conspiracy to rob or armed robbery.
Held: Lord Parker CJ said it was contended for the appellant ‘. . .that a plea of guilty must be recorded, that once recorded it ranks as a conviction . . that the judge had no power to direct that that plea should be altered and entered as one of not guilty; and that, on the basis that the plea of guilty remained and was a conviction, it was not possible for the prosecution to proceed further and have the appellant tried for armed robbery.’
Of the issue of when a conviction occurs, following a plea of guilty by a defendant on arraignment, Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It is quite clear that it does not occur at the time of the recording, because otherwise it would be impossible for a judge to allow a plea to be changed, as is perfectly possible up to sentence, and indeed in one of the cases the verdict of the jury itself was set aside before sentence. In the judgment of the court, it only ranks as a conviction when the defendant is sentenced.’
Of the appropriate procedure, where a defendant pleads to an alternative separate count on an indictment, Lord Parker CJ said: ‘This court has been invited to lay down what is the proper practice. It is merely sufficient to say that in the ordinary case a judge should allow the plea of guilty to stand. In those circumstances a defendant will only be put in charge of the jury on the serious charge, in this case the armed robbery. If he was acquitted of the armed robbery, then he can be sentenced on the count to which he has pleaded guilty. If, on the other hand, he is convicted of the armed robbery then the proper course for the judge is to allow the count to which he has pleaded guilty to remain on the file and not to proceed to sentence him.’
Lord Parker CJ ‘it is quite clear that whilst no doubt the confession of guilt is the highest conviction, nowhere is it stated either in Hale or Hawkins when the conviction occurred. It is clear that it does not occur at the time of the recording because otherwise it would be impossible for a judge to allow a plea to be changed, as is perfectly possible up to sentence, and indeed in one of the cases a verdict of a jury itself was set aside before sentence. In the judgment of the court it only ranks as a conviction when the defendant is sentenced’.
Lord Parker CJ
(1965) 49 Cr App R 199 (CCA), [1965] 2 QB 388, [1965] 2 All ER 29
England and Wales
Cited – Pollett and Others v Regina CACD 26-Mar-2013
Parties had been convicted of various offences associated with the conduct of a large Ponzi investment fraud scheme, and now appealed against sentence and or conviction.
Held: In P’s case, the charges had been laid as alternatives, and having . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.510156
Mr Justice Sweeney
[2012] EWHC 2325 (QB), [2012] 5 Costs LR 965
Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 31(5)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.463503
Silber J
[2008] EWHC 506 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.266235
(1886) 3 TLR 159
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Rankine CACD 1986
R appealed his conviction for unlawfully supplying a controlled drug. Officers claimed to have seen him, but the court agreed not to order disclosure of their observation location.
Held: The appeal failed. It was important not to discourage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.223567
A man is not compellable to give evidence which might incriminate himself.
(1847) 1 Den 236
England and Wales
Cited – Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Re Westinghouse Electric Corpn Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 (No 2) HL 1977
The court considered a claim that a party was not compelled to give evidence where it might incriminate him: ‘No one is bound to furnish information against himself. It [the common law] says: ‘If a witness claims the protection of the court, on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.193365
[1943] AC 147
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 30-Jan-2004
The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.193379
S, a 16 year old boy pleaded guilty to attempted rape before a juvenile court. The magistrates adjourned the case for inquiry reports. On the adjourned hearing, his legal representative referred to evidence of the boy’s mental condition, and asked for the boy to be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty. The magistrates held that they had no power to permit this, and went on to make a hospital order on the plea of guilty. When hearing an application by a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty, the question was not simply whether the plea was unequivocal; it is important that it should be freely made, given its status as a public acknowledgement and confession of guilt. The concept of ‘conviction’ in the sections at issue was that of a finding of guilt, but not a formal order rendering the court functus officio: ‘The finding of guilt may involve reaching a conclusion in regard to disputed or contested facts. It may involve proceeding on the basis of or ‘accepting’ a confession made in court by way of an unequivocal and unambiguous plea of guilty which so far as the court can tell was intentionally made with full appreciation of all that it involved.’
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: ‘If, before the court has completed its task in regard to the case, an application to withdraw the plea is made and if it is made for reasons the court deems valid and which perhaps it had previously had no opportunity of considering, is the court powerless to accede to it? It would be lamentable if that were so. The court might feel that having regard to the reasons advanced it would be wholly wrong to hold a person to some previous acknowledgement of guilt. The desire of any court must be to ensure, so far as possible, that only those are punished who are in fact guilty. The duty of a court to clear the innocent must be equal or superior in importance to its duty to convict and punish the guilty. Guilt may be proved by evidence. But also it may be confessed. The court will, however, have great concern, if any doubt exists as to whether a confession was intended or as to whether it ought really ever to have been made.’
Lord MacDermott said: ‘The evidence relevant to the commission of an offence is generally relevant to the sentence. That part of the hearing which is directed to the sentence may well cast new light on the question of guilt or innocence. I think it is safe to say that this has long been recognised and the tenor of English law has been against erecting any barrier between these two parts or stages which would place them, as it were, in watertight compartments and so reduce the scope of judicial ascertainment and discretion . . Every experienced judge knows that, even in uncontested matters, the truth has a habit of emerging in bits and pieces, and that the legal ingredients of the offence charged may not be fully understood by the accused . . Once made, a mistaken plea may be properly accepted and the mistake may never stand revealed. But if, as can happen, the truth comes to light during the second stage of the proceedings, when the question of what to do with the accused is under consideration, why should it not be acted upon and a changed plea of Not Guilty allowed where the interests of justice so require?’
Lord Reid said: ‘Much of the difficulty has arisen from the fact that ‘conviction’ is commonly used with two different meanings. It often is used to mean final disposal of a case and it is not uncommon for it to be used as meaning a finding of guilt. It is proper to say that a plea cannot be changed after ‘conviction’ in the former sense. But it does not at all follow that a plea cannot be changed after ‘conviction’ in the latter sense. It is perfectly true that ‘conviction’ is used in this latter sense in the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1952, and a number of other statutes. But I cannot infer from that any intention of the legislature to alter as regards summary jurisdiction the old rule that a plea can be changed at any time before final disposal of the case.’
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord MacDermott
[1971] AC 481
Magistrates Courts Act 1952 13(3) 14(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Stratford Youth Court, Ex Parte Conde QBD 29-Mar-1996
A court sentencing a youth who had been committed to it for sentence, had all the powers of the original court, including the power to accept a change of plea. . .
Cited – Regina v Mason CACD 18-Nov-2004
The defendant had entered a plea of guilty to a charge of manslaughter, but now sought to vacate that plea. There had been a fight after a wedding reception. The defendant was said to have joined in a multi-handed attack on the victim. The defendant . .
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. . .
Cited – Challen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.183478
The persons who are supposed to have been seconds at a duel, may refuse to gave evidence on the trial of the principals, but their testimony may he received
as the testimony of persons admitted witnesses for the Crown, arid if once sworn, they must disclose the whole truth, although they may thereby involve
themselves in the guilt of the transaction
[1730] EngR 65, (1730-1815) 2 Leach 767, (1730) 168 ER 483
England and Wales
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.387694
If a statute is ambiguous, the court may look at the long title to discover the purpose of the Act: ‘In many cases the long title may supply the key to the meaning. The principle, as I understand it, is that where something is doubtful or ambiguous the long title may be looked to to resolve the doubt or ambiguity, but, in the absence of doubt or ambiguity, the passage under construction must be taken to mean what it says, so that if its meaning be clear, that meaning is not to be narrowed or restricted by reference to the long title.’
Donovan J
[1952] 2 All ER 842
England and Wales
Cited – Cornwall County Council v Baker Admn 18-Feb-2003
The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.195480
The jury had come back into court with a question showing that they were having difficulty in understanding the direction on provocation. A court preparing to direct the jury on the defence of provocation woiuld be wise to submit the form of direction to counsel in the case for comments.
Unreported, 21 February 2003
England and Wales
Practice recommendation – Weller, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that provocation should have been found. The issue was whether or not, in the course of his summing-up, the trial judge should have left, and if so whether he had left, to the jury the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.188895
A conviction in a capital case may not stand in the absence of a proper direction on the standard of proof.
[1958] 1 QB 1
England and Wales
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: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.192070
Some of the jurors, although present when the verdict was delivered, were so placed that they were not able to hear what the foreman said and were in fact in disagreement with it.
Held: The exclusionary rule had not been infringed by evidence that the jurors could not see or hear what was taking place when the verdict was announced.
(1817) 2 Stark 111
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 . .
Followed – Ellis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.192274
When construing a statutory povision, it may be justifiable to turn back to the common law where it contains provisions of doubtful import, or uses language which had previously acquired a technical meaning, or on some other special ground.
[1892] AC 481, [1892] UKPC 37
Canada
Admission – Robinson v The Canadian Pacific Railway PC 25-Jul-1891
(Canada) Acceptance of appeal. . .
Cited – Teiko David Jamel Furbert and Sheldon Eugenio Franks v The Queen PC 23-Mar-2000
PC (Bermuda) The appellants challenged their conviction for murder. Evidence had been admitted of informal and unadmitted conversations with police officers after charge, with the officers notebooks put before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.181017
The parties sought guidance from the court on the circumstances which arose in ancillary relief proceedings where a legal representative came to believe that one party might be holding the proceeds of crime. In the course of ancillary relief proceedings, the parties legal representatives concluded that some part of the matrimonial assets might represent the proceeds of crime. If they succeeded in obtaining part of the assets for their client they would commit an offence. They disclosed their concerns but were refused permission to disclose their own disclosure.
Held: The representatives had a duty to disclose their concerns to the authorities, but if it was necessary to disclose the tip off for the proceedings and it formed no part of any criminal purpose, they could disclose the tipping off to the other party. The Act envisaged permission to a party to make authorised disclosures. The ambit of the Act was wider than for earlier provisions, and might affect many proceedings. Negotiations could be affected just as much as any actual transfer. The Act makes no distinction between degrees of criminal property. An illegally obtained sum of andpound;10 is no less susceptible to the definition of ‘criminal property’ than a sum of andpound;1million.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
[2003] EWHC 2260 (Fam), Times 14-Oct-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] Fam 1
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 333(4)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Cox and Railton 1884
(Court for Crown Cases Reserved) The defendants were charged with conspiracy to defraud a judgment creditor of the fruits of a judgment by dishonestly backdating a dissolution of their partnership to a date prior to a bill of sale given by Railton . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte Francis and Francis HL 1989
The police had obtained an ex parte order for the production of files from a firm of solicitors relating to financial transactions of one of their clients. The police believed that the client had been provided with money to purchase property by an . .
Cited – Bank of Scotland v A Ltd and Others (Serious Fraud Office, Interested Party) CA 6-Feb-2001
A bank, having been informed that the activities of a customer involved money laundering, found itself in a position where, if it paid out the funds, it would face conviction, but if it failed to do so, it be found to be involved in tipping off the . .
Cited – Jenkins v Livesey (formerly Jenkins) HL 1985
The parties had negotiated through solicitors a compromise of ancillary relief claims on their divorce. They agreed that the house should be transferred to the wife in consideration of her release of all other financial claims. The wife however . .
Cited – Bank of Scotland v A Ltd and Others (Serious Fraud Office, Interested Party) CA 6-Feb-2001
A bank, having been informed that the activities of a customer involved money laundering, found itself in a position where, if it paid out the funds, it would face conviction, but if it failed to do so, it be found to be involved in tipping off the . .
Cited – Allan v Clibbery (1) CA 30-Jan-2002
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .
Cited – C v S and Others (Money Laundering: Discovery of Documents) CA 3-Oct-1998
The money laundering regulations create a conflict between private rights and criminal provisions, particularly the restriction on information which might prejudice an investigation may be under way. Conflicts were resolved by guidance from NCIS. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.186717
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way case stated against the decision of the Magistrates by which they refused an application by the prosecution to amend two charges alleging common assault to add the words, ‘by beating.’ The magistrates refused the application because it was made outside the six month time limit allowed for charging summary offences, and they considered it to be contrary to the interests of justice to allow it.
Held: It was clearly in the interests of justice that this amendment should be allowed, and that the case should proceed.
[2020] EWHC 859 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.650579
Appeal after judge refusing retrial – leading defence counsel becoming seriously ill.
[2010] EWCA Crim 525
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.408826
Appeal against conviction essentially on the ground that the jury was put under undue pressure of time to reach its verdict.
[2010] EWCA Crim 712
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.408823
The court refused to receive affidavits from two jurors indicating that they had decided on their verdict by tossing a coin to resolve the issue. The rationale was that this was to protect them against self-incrimination for what he described as a very high misdemeanour. The court cannot receive an affidavit from a juror as to the nature of the juror’s deliberations.
Lord Mansfield
(1785) 1 TR11
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192268
The court considered the balance of judicial summings up to juries and the permissible limits of judicial comment: ‘The learned judge is said to have interfered improperly in the conduct of the case, and not to have put it fairly to the jury, and not to have stated the law properly. The latter would be fatal unless the case came within the proviso of the section. The other observations of the learned judge only become grounds of appeal if they have in fact caused substantial miscarriage of justice. In our view, a judge is not only entitled, but ought, to give the jury some assistance on questions of fact as well as on questions of law. Of course, questions of fact are for the jury and not for the judge, yet the judge has experience on the bearing of evidence, and in dealing with the relevancy of questions of fact, and it is therefore right that the jury should have the assistance of the judge. It is not wrong for the judge to give confident opinions upon questions of fact. It is impossible for him to deal with doubtful points of fact unless he can state some of the facts confidently to the jury. It is necessary for him sometimes to express extremely confident opinions. The mere finding, therefore, of very confident expressions in the summing up does not show that it is an improper one. When one is considering the effect of a summing up, one must give credit to the jury for intelligence, and for the knowledge that they are not bound by the expressions of the judge upon questions of fact. No doubt the learned judge did express himself very strongly. But on the main question we think him right.’
Channell J
(1909) 2 Cr App R 197
England and Wales
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192073
The applicant challenged the imposition of a sex offender’s order, on the basis that having been convicted of the last offence, that was the date after which he had to have behaved in such a way as to cause the concern necessary in turn to found an application.
Held: The Act required only such behaviour only either after the date of commencement of the Act, or after the most recent conviction. Behaviour occurring after commencement of the Act, but before the last conviction could be used.
Davis J
Times 01-Nov-2002
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 2 3
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.177838
Juries – verdict alteration
[1994] Crim LR 225
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192265
The court disapproved of a jury being told that disbelieving a police officer would ruin his career.
(1970) 54 Cr App R 310
England and Wales
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. . .
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192071
After a long fraud trial a majority direction was given. The foreman returned a verdict of guilty on count 1. He answered the question whether this was a verdict of ‘you all or by a majority’, ‘By a majority of us all.’ A disturbance at the back of the court drowned part of the foreman’s answer and no one noted that the verdict was other than unanimous. The defendant argued that the majority verdict provisions in section 17(3) had not been complied with. The Crown argued that the foreman was to be understood as saying that the jury were unanimous.
Held: The foreman’s answer was ambiguous and that ambiguity had to be resolved in favour of the defendant.
[1992] Crim LR 313
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192259
The court considered when a jury might change its verdict.
[1964] 2 QB 1, [1964] 48 Cr App R 122
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192262
The trial judge had omitted to give a rape jury any direction on the standard of proof.
Held: The court regarded that as a serious defect, not cured by references in the speeches of counsel, but applied the proviso to the section so as to allow the conviction to stand.
(1983) 77 Cr App R 5
Criminal Appeals Act 1968 2(1)
England and Wales
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192069
The jury returned after three hours retirement and said they had not reached a verdict. The judge did not give a majority direction, but a somewhat garbled version of a Walhein direction. The clerk asked the foreman whether the jury had reached a verdict on which at least 10 had agreed and the foreman answered ‘Yes’. The clerk asked the foreman, ‘Do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty upon this indictment?’ and the foreman answered ‘Guilty.’ It appears that the clerk then asked in the form of a question, ‘And that is the verdict of 10 of you?’ to which an answer if given was not recorded. Defence counsel attempted to regularise the position, but in vain. It was accordingly plain that the foreman had not stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to, and dissented from.
Held: The governing section was mandatory and the majority verdict was unlawful and could not be allowed to stand.
[1975] 1 WLR 1190
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192257
One of two witnesses whom the prosecution desired to call at the hearing of an information had not arrived. The available witness was called. The prosecution case closed. The defendant gave evidence and his case closed. The justices had retired to consider their decision when they were informed that the second prosecution witness, whose car had broken down, had arrived. They returned to court and allowed the prosecution to call him. His evidence corroborated that of the first prosecution witness. The defendant was convicted.
Held: Although justices have a discretion to allow further evidence to be called in particular circumstances, the manner of exercise depends on the stage of the case. In the absence of very special circumstances, they should not allow evidence to be called after they have retired, and that such circumstances being absent, the further evidence for the prosecution had been wrongly admitted, and the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed.
Lord Parker CJ: ‘It is, of course, quite clear under our law that he who affirms must prove. Therefore strictly once the prosecution have closed their case there will be no opportunity for them to call further evidence, subject of course to evidence in rebuttal, with which we are not concerned. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that there must always be some residuary discretion of the court to allow, in particular circumstances, evidence to be called, but the manner in which that discretion is exercised must depend on the stage of the case. When one turns to indictable offences it is perfectly clear that it has become now an established rule of law that no evidence can be called after the summing up and the judge, who in his discretion sought to exercise his discretion by allowing evidence to be called at that stage, would be acting entirely wrongly and the conviction would be quashed.
The same considerations do not wholly apply in the Magistrates’ Court but, nevertheless, as a general rule and in the absence of some special circumstances it would certainly be wholly wrong for the justices to purport to exercise a discretion to allow evidence to be called once they have retired and, indeed, probably after the defence had closed their case. At an earlier stage it may well be proper to exercise the discretion in favour of allowing the witness to be called and indeed that was suggested in the decision of this court in Saunders v Johns.’
‘So far as this case is concerned I am quite satisfied that there was only one way in which any residuary discretion in the justices could have been exercised, the prosecution having closed their case, the defence having closed their case and they having retired. In those circumstances, I think there is no option but to quash this conviction.’
Winn LJ: ‘This is not one of those cases in which there were the very special circumstances to which Lord Parker CJ has referred.’
Lord Parker CJ, Winn LJ and Sachs J
[1966] 1 WLR 245
England and Wales
Cited – Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Cited – Phelan v Back 1972
. .
Cited – Traves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195677
Two defendants were tried for causing injuries to one child. The jury convicted the female defendant, of positive acts of cruelty against the child and returned a verdict of not guilty of those acts in respect of the male defendant. After the police had given evidence of the antecedent history of the woman, some 10 minutes later, a note was handed to the judge. This read: ‘We thought we found the appellant guilty of wilful neglect. What happens now?’ After discussion between judge and counsel an amended verdict was taken. The appellant was found guilty, not of assault or ill-treatment of the child but of wilful neglect. The appeal was put forward on the basis that the trial judge was wrong to exercise his discretion to allow the jury to return the amended verdict.
Held: Notwithstanding that the verdict of not guilty had originally been entered the conviction was upheld. Simon Brown J analysed some of the old authorities, saying: ‘It seems to this Court, both on those two authorities and as a matter of general principle, that the position in law is as follows: where the jury seeks to alter a verdict which has been pronounced by the foreman, the judge has a discretion whether to allow the alteration to be made. In exercising that discretion he will, it goes without saying, take into account all the circumstances of the case; in particular the important considerations will be the length of time which has elapsed between the original verdict and the moment when the jury express their wish to alter it, the probable reason for the initial mistake, the necessity to ensure that justice is done not only to the defendant but also to the prosecution. The fact that the defendant has been discharged from custody is one of the factors but is not necessarily fatal to the judge’s discretion to alter the verdict to one of guilty. If the jury had been discharged and a fortiori if they had dispersed, it might well be impossible for the judge to allow the verdict to be changed. That however it is unnecessary to decide upon the instant appeal. Clearly if there were any question of the jury’s verdict being altered as a result of anything they heard after a returning their initial verdict, then there could be no question of allowing a fresh verdict to be returned. But there is here no possibility of that having occurred.’
Lord Lane CJ, Simon Brown J
(1986) 82 Cr App R 148
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Vodden 1853
The court considered when a jury might be allowed to change its verdict. one of the jurors delivered a verdict of not guilty. The clerk heard, so did the chairman, who heard the same words. The prisoner was discharged from the dock. Others of the . .
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Cited – Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192264
It was alleged that the jurors had drawn lots to select their verdict: ‘No doubt . . that we cannot take the affidavit of a juryman stating his own misconduct, or that of his brother jurymen . . The affidavits here produced, however, are not made by the jurors themselves . . but they are the affidavits of persons who witnessed the transaction itself, of agreeing to draw lots, and drawing lots’. The affidevits were admitted.
Coleridge J
(1840) 8 Dowl 598
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: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192270
A defendant seeking to avoid answering questions so as not to incriminate himself is to be given some understanding and latitude in respecting his own interpretation. The beneficiary of a pardon could be called upon to incriminate himself because he merited no protection: ‘the effect of which [the pardon] was to make him a new man, and consequently to bar any proceedings by or in the name of the Crown’.
Cockburn CJ set out the level of risk required to allow a claim of the privilege against self incrimination: ‘To entitle a witness to the privilege of not answering a question as tending to incriminate him, the court must see, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable grounds to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer. If the facts of the witness being endangered be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging the effect of any particular question. The danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, and not a danger of imaginary character having reference to some barely possible contingency.’
Cockburn CJ
(1861) 1 B and S 311, [1861] EngR 626, (1861) 121 ER 730
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Boyes 1860
A witness, an accomplice in a criminal offence, who has received the pardon of the Crown under the Great Seal for that offence, has no privilege of refusing to answer questions relating to the offence, which may tend to criminate himself. He is . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Cited – Phillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.193366
Enquiries into a jury’s deliberations might be allowable as to extraneous events which might have affected them.
(1999) SCCR 1
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192255
(South African Constitutional Court) The court explained the significance of the presumption of innocence: ‘There is a paradox at the heart of all criminal procedure in that the more serious the crime and the greater the public interest in securing convictions of the guilty, the more important do constitutional protections of the accused become. The starting point of any balancing enquiry where constitutional rights are concerned must be that the public interest in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted and subjected to ignominy and heavy sentences massively outweighs the public interest in ensuring that a particular criminal is brought to book . . Hence the presumption of innocence, which serves not only to protect a particular individual on trial, but to maintain public confidence in the enduring integrity and security of the legal system. Reference to the prevalence and severity of a certain crime therefore does not add anything new or special to the balancing exercise. The perniciousness of the offence is one of the givens, against which the presumption of innocence is pitted from the beginning, not a new element to be put into the scales as part of a justificatory balancing exercise. If this were not so, the ubiquity and ugliness argument could be used in relation to murder, rape, car-jacking, housebreaking, drug-smuggling, corruption . . . the list is unfortunately almost endless, and nothing would be left of the presumption of innocence, save, perhaps, for its relic status as a doughty defender of rights in the most trivial of cases’.
Sachs J
[1997] 2 LRC 593
England and Wales
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194983
It is not in the interests of justice for the prosecution to be given a second chance to make good deficiencies in its case. The Board gave guidance on the considerations relevant to ordering a new trial: ‘. . the interest of justice that is served by the power to order a new trial is the interest of the public … that those persons who are guilty of serious crimes should be brought to justice and not escape it merely because of some technical blunder by the judge in the conduct of the trial or in his summing up to the jury.’ Furthermore ‘. . it is not necessarily a condition precedent to the ordering of a new trial that the Court of Appeal should be satisfied of the probability that it will result in a conviction. There may be cases where, even though the Court of Appeal considers that upon a fresh trial an acquittal is on balance more likely than a conviction, ‘It is in the interest of the public, the complainant, and the [defendant] himself that the question of guilt or otherwise be determined finally by the verdict of a jury, and not left as something which must remain undecided by reason of a defect in legal machinery.’ This was said by the Full Court of Hong Kong when ordering a new trial in Ng Yuk-kin v The Crown (1955) 39 HKLR 49, 60. That was a case of rape, but in their Lordships’ view it states a consideration that may be of wider application.’
Lord Diplock
[1980] AC 343
Commonwealth
Cited – Michael Pringle v The Queen PC 27-Jan-2003
PC (Jamaica) The court considered the way in which statistical conclusions drawn from DNA evidence had been presented to the jury. The judge had fallen into the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy.’ Also the court had relied . .
Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Cited – AG for the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia v Steinhoff PC 19-Jul-2005
(Akrotiri and Dhekelia) The defendant had appealed convictions for rape and attempted rape. He had criticised the arrangements for protecting the complainant when giving evidence, which had not complied with the 1999 Act. His appeal succeeded in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.195989
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea. But the substance and effect of any presumption adverse to a defendant must be examined, and must be reasonable.’
The justifiability and fairness of such defences have to be judged in the particular context of each case. The defendant being found drunk in charge a car, he appealed a finding which relied upon his failure to prove his own intention not to drive. The burden of proof provision in section 5(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a legal burden on an accused who is charged with an offence contrary to section 5(1)(b) of that Act. The second defendant faced charges under the Terrorism Act 2000, of being a member of a proscribed organisation. The A G appealed his acquittal in the Court of Appeal. ‘Section 11(1), considered on its own, is a provision of extraordinary breadth. It would cover a person who joined an organisation when it was not a terrorist organisation or when, if it was, he did not know that it was. It would cover a person who joined an organisation when it was not proscribed or, if it was, he did not know that it was. It would cover a person who joined such an organisation as an immature juvenile. It would cover someone who joined such an organisation abroad in a country where it was not prosribed and came to this country ignorant that it was proscribed here’ Section 11(2) should be read down to impose only an evidential burden on a defendant.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
[2004] UKHL 43, Times 14-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 AC 264, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169
Road Traffic Act 1988 5(2), Terrorism Act 2000 11(2), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Cited – Daniel MNaghtens Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards 1975
On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ licence, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no licence but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a . .
Cited – Jayasena v The Queen PC 1-Dec-2006
J appealed from his conviction of murder. He admitted the act but said that it was in self defence. He said that the Judge had misdirected the jury as to the burden of evidence on the issue of self defence.
Held: Lord Devlin said: ‘Their . .
Cited – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .
Cited – Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1968
The appellant had been convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1964 Act, of having been found in possession of drugs.
Held: (Reid dissenting) The prosecution had only to prove that the accused knew of the existence of the thing . .
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 1972
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision . .
Cited – Regina v K HL 25-Jul-2001
In a prosecution for an offence of indecent assault on a girl under 16 under the section, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the absence of a positive belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 16 or over. The legislation history . .
Cited – B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
Cited – Bernard v France ECHR 23-Apr-1998
The presumption of innocence is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial required by article 6(1). Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2 . .
Cited – Salabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
Cited – Pham Hoang v France ECHR 25-Sep-1992
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; . .
Cited – Attorney General v Malta 10-Dec-1991
The applcant challenged a provision which imposed criminal liability on a director of a body which had committed a criminal offence ‘unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to . .
Cited – H v United Kingdom ECHR 1985
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1973 for committing a murder in the course of a robbery.
Held: The penalty for this offence at the time it was committed was life imprisonment and thus no issue under Art. 7 (art. 7) arises . .
Cited – Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain ECHR 6-Dec-1988
ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The . .
Cited – Brown v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Jul-2002
Article 6(2) of the Convention was not violated by a provision which enabled a newspaper proprietor or publisher to escape strict liability under section 4(5) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 only if he proved, on the balance of . .
Cited – Bates v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jan-1996
The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act.
Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his . .
Cited – Telfner v Austria ECHR 20-Mar-2001
ECHR The victim of a motor accident was able to identify the offending car, or even whether the driver was male or female. The car was owned by the applicant’s mother, and he denied driving at the time. There was . .
Cited – Heaney and McGuinness v Ireland ECHR 21-Dec-2000
Hudoc The claimants challenged anti-terrorist legislation introduced by the respondent. They complained that it violated the article 6(1) right of the applicants to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, . .
Cited – Porras v Netherlands ECHR 18-Jan-2000
The applicant was convicted of intentionally importing cocaine and he complained that the burden of proof had been reversed by imposing on him an obligation, which he found impossible to discharge, to prove that he was not and could not have been . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan CACD 14-Sep-2000
Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a . .
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 – Janosevic v Sweden ECHR 23-Jul-2002
Complaint was made that tax surcharges were applied in a way which was incompatible with article 6(2) because ‘an almost insurmountable burden of proof’ was imposed on the taxpayer.
Held: There was no need for the Swedish authorities to prove . .
Cited – Selvanayagam v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2002
Any presumption of law which had operated against the applicant had been within reasonable limits, had taken account of the importance of what was at stake and had maintained the rights of the defence. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgender Male to Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) CACD 29-Apr-2004
The court considered references by the Attorney-General with regard to offences imposing a burden of proof upon the defendant. ‘An evidential burden will be discharged by a defendant by ensuring that there is some evidence before the court which . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Regina v Gleeson CACD 3-Oct-2001
The Court of Appeal should not tinker with sentences passed by lower courts in the absence of exceptional circumstances, or where they were wrong in principle, or were manifestly excessive. Here a sentence of 30 months for a professional and . .
Wrongly Decided – Regina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
Appeal from – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2003
The defendant challenged the application of the section, under which he was deemed to have intended to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, unless he could prove it was not his intent to drive, saying this infringed his right to a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Watkins QBD 1989
The offence in section 5 does not require proof that a defendant is likely to drive when accused of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs: ‘In regard to that section two broad propositions are clear. First, the . .
Appeal from – Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 CACD 21-Mar-2003
The defendant had been tried for an offence under the Act of being a member of a proscribed organisation, and professing membership of Hamas. At trial the Crown accepted an evidential burden, that the offence had to be read down to comply with the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker Admn 19-Oct-2004
Driving whilst disqualified – ban expired but no test taken – burden of evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the . .
Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Cited – Regina v G CACD 12-Apr-2006
The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his . .
Cited – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright; Regina (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court Admn 4-Feb-2009
The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and . .
Cited – Watkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
Cited – Webster v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Cited – Tovey and Others v Ministry of Justice QBD 18-Feb-2011
The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Cited – Wood v Revenue and Customs UTTC 25-Jul-2016
UTTC INCOME TAX – discovery assessments made against taxpayer relying on extended time limits on grounds of deliberate conduct – death of taxpayer – whether assessments should be discharged on grounds personal . .
Cited – Shepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.216465
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court rejected an argument that as a matter of principle a constitutional presumption of innocence only applies to elements of the offence and not excuses: ‘The real concern is not whether the accused must disprove an element or prove an excuse, but that an accused may be convicted while a reasonable doubt exists. When that possibility exists, there is a breach of the presumption of innocence. The exact characterization of a factor as an essential element, a collateral factor, an excuse, or a defence should not affect the analysis of the presumption of innocence. It is the final effect of a provision on the verdict that is decisive. If an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused.’
Dickson CJC
(1988) 51 DLR 4th 481
Canada
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194985
(West Africa) The judge had failed to give a direction on provocation in a murder case where the issue properly arose.
Lord Goddard said: ‘But if on the whole of the evidence there arises a question whether or not the offence might be manslaughter only, on the ground of provocation as well as on any other ground, the judge must put that question to the jury. This was distinctly laid down in Rex v Hopper [1915] 2 KB 431, a case in some respects resembling the present, more especially in that the line of defence adopted was that the killing was accidental and no attempt had been made at the trial to rely on provocation. The ruling was expressly approved by the House of Lords in Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1942] AC 1. The reason for the rule is that on an indictment for murder it is open to the jury to find a verdict of either murder or manslaughter, but the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the offence amounts to murder if that verdict is sought. If on the whole of the evidence there is nothing which could entitle a jury to return the lesser verdict the judge is not bound to leave it to them to find murder or manslaughter. But if there is any such evidence then, whether the defence have relied on it or not, the judge must bring it to the attention of the jury, because if they accept it or are left in doubt about it the prosecution have not proved affirmatively a case of murder.’
Lord Goddard
[1946] AC 83, [1945] UKPC 51, (1946) 2 CR 113, [1946] 2 WWR 455
Commonwealth
Cited – Regina v Hopper CCA 1914
Lord Reading CJ said: ‘We do not assent to the suggestion that as the defence throughout the trial was accident, the judge was justified in not putting the question as to manslaughter. Whatever the line of defence adopted by counsel at the trial of . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Approved – Director of Public Prosecutions v Daley PC 1980
(Jamaica) The defendants had an argument with the deceased, who ran from them, tripped on a concrete ramp and fell. He died a few days later. The accused had thrown stones at him while he was running from them. The prosecution alleged that he died . .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.243354
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. In this case however the summing up was so prejudicial as to make the conviction unsafe.
Lord Bingham CJ said that legislation enacted after the conviction and sentence does not affect the correctness of anything done under the law as it stood and was properly applied at the time of trial
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Collins
Times 31-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Appleby 1940
Appleby and Osler, while committing an offence of warehouse-breaking, were surprised by police officers. They attempted to escape, but were pursued by the officers and a shot was fired by Osler which killed one of the officers. The expression ‘Let . .
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited – Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Rex v Kritz 1949
The House discussed the extent of the direction required to be given to a jury as to the standard of proof required: ‘The only other point which has been seriously argued is that because the learned Common Sergeant told the jury that they must be . .
Cited – Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen PC 1963
Their Lordships explained the meaning of the words of Viscount Salmon in Holmes: ‘It is plain that Viscount Simon must have meant the word ‘actual’ to have a limiting effect and that he had in mind some particular category of intention. He cannot . .
Cited – Rex v Summers HL 1952
The House considered the direction on the standard of proof. Lord Goddard said: ‘It is far better, instead of using the words ‘reasonable doubt’ and then trying to explain what is a reasonable doubt, to direct a jury: ‘You must not convict unless . .
Cited – Regina v Murtagh and Kennedy 1955
. .
Cited – Regina v Hepworth and Fearnley 1955
Lord Goddard discussed again the direction to the jury as to the standard of proof: ‘I think it is very unfortunate to talk to juries about reasonable doubt, because the explanations given of what is and what is not a reasonable doubt are so very . .
Cited – Regina v Bradbury 1969
A court must give a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof. A mere reference to being ‘satisfied’ without a reference to being sure, or being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, was inadequate. . .
Cited – Regina v Dunbar 1958
A conviction in a capital case may not stand in the absence of a proper direction on the standard of proof. . .
Cited – Regina v Gourley 1981
The court emphasised the need for a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof. . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards 1983
The trial judge had omitted to give a rape jury any direction on the standard of proof.
Held: The court regarded that as a serious defect, not cured by references in the speeches of counsel, but applied the proviso to the section so as to . .
Cited – Regina v Quinn 1983
The court laid down the need for a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof required. . .
Cited – Rex v Cohen and Bateman 1909
The court considered the balance of judicial summings up to juries and the permissible limits of judicial comment: ‘The learned judge is said to have interfered improperly in the conduct of the case, and not to have put it fairly to the jury, and . .
Cited – Regina v West 1910
A judge should not put himself in the position of the jury as regards the decision of facts and that the proviso to the section would not apply where the judge decided facts instead of the jury. . .
Cited – Rex v O’Donnell 1917
The appeal court considered the position of a defendant where the judge had summed up strongly against him: ‘ . . a judge, when directing a jury, is clearly entitled to express his opinion on the facts of the case, provided that he leaves the issues . .
Cited – Rex v Frampton 1917
In this case it was held that the trial judge had gone too far in his comments and could not really be said to have put the defendant’s case to the jury. ‘We cannot allow a summing up which puts the case so strongly against the prisoner to stand…’ . .
Cited – Rex v Canny 1945
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Culbertson CCA 1970
The court disapproved of a jury being told that disbelieving a police officer would ruin his career. . .
Cited – Regina v Culbertson CCA 1970
The court disapproved of a jury being told that disbelieving a police officer would ruin his career. . .
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Cited – Regina v Gilbey CACD 26-Jan-1990
The court warned judges about the need for a balanced summing up to the jury: ‘A judge . . is not entitled to comment in such a way as to make the summing up as a whole unbalanced . . It cannot be said too often or too strongly that a summing up . .
Cited – Rex v Betts and Ridley 1931
Betts and Ridley agreed to rob a man on thw way to the bank. Betts was to push him to the ground and snatch the bag, while Ridley waited nearby in a car. When snatching the bag, Betts struck the victim who later died. Betts and Ridley were both . .
Cited – Mears v Regina PC 1993
The prosecution case relied upon the evidence of a woman with whom the accused cohabited. The prosecution case was that the accused had told the woman that he had killed the victim in a particular way. The defendant denied killing the victim and . .
Cited – Regina v Wood CACD 11-Jul-1995
A newspaper’s pressure on jury to convict by suggesting other evidence, made the trial unfair. Suggestions of unfairness by judge in his summing up should only be made if supported by counsel at the trial. The degree of adverse comment allowed today . .
Cited – Rex v Jarmain CCA 1946
The defendant, in robbing him, pointed his cocked pistol at the cashier. He claimed that he was thinking what to do but had no intention of pressing the trigger, but the gun went off and killed her.
Held: Pointing a loaded pistol at a person . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .
Cited – Regina v Uddin CACD 19-Mar-1998
A co-accused in a murder by a gang, where the existence of the murder weapon which was used, was outside the expectation of the defendant, need not himself be guilty, because of the different circumstances which applied in his case. . .
Cited – Regina v Whitehouse 1941
(British Columbia) The court asked when a party to a joint enterprise may claim to have abandoned or withdrawn from that enterprise ‘Can it be said on the facts of this case that a mere change of mental intention and a quitting of the scene of the . .
Cited – Regina v Whitefield 1984
The two accused agreed to break into a flat, but before entry was achieved, W said he withdrew. The other burgled the flat with another.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge was wrong to tell the jury that communication of his withdrawal to . .
Cited – Regina v Becerra and Cooper CACD 1975
The defendants sought leave to appeal against their convictions for a brutal and horrific murder. Becerra suggeste dtat he had wanted to withdraw from the event before the murder took place.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ in the circumstances then . .
Followed – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
Cited – Hendy, Regina v CACD 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for a brutal murder. He had pleaded diminished responsibility. There were now no papers from the trial. Medical evidence now suggested that at the time of the trial he would have suffered a . .
Cited – Docherty, Regina v CACD 18-Jun-2014
The defendant appealed against his sentence to a term of imprisonment for public protection on his admission of wounding with intent. The sentencing system applied was replaced on the day following sentencing, and he said that the court should have . .
Cited – Boakye and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Apr-2012
The defendants appealed their sentences for importation of class A drugs. They had acted as drugs mules. New guidelines were due to take effect which be expected to have led to shorter sentences. The court was asked whether such new standards could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.155390
Lord Reading CJ said: ‘We do not assent to the suggestion that as the defence throughout the trial was accident, the judge was justified in not putting the question as to manslaughter. Whatever the line of defence adopted by counsel at the trial of a prisoner, we are of opinion that it is for the judge to put such questions as appear to him properly to arise upon the evidence even although counsel may not have raised some question himself. In this case it may be that the difficulty of presenting the alternative defences of accident and manslaughter may have actuated counsel in saying very little about manslaughter, but if we come to the conclusion, as we do, that there was some evidence – we say no more than that – upon which a question ought to have been left to the jury as to the crime being manslaughter only, we think that this verdict of murder cannot stand.’
Lord Reading CJ
[1915] 2 KB 431
England and Wales
Approved – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Approved – Bullard v The Queen PC 1957
The question was whether there was evidence on which the jury could have found a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation rather than the verdict of murder which had been returned.
Held: There is naturally a tendency for an appellate . .
Cited – Kwaku Mensah v The King PC 1946
(West Africa) The judge had failed to give a direction on provocation in a murder case where the issue properly arose.
Lord Goddard said: ‘But if on the whole of the evidence there arises a question whether or not the offence might be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.243337
The appellant claimed that a prosecution under the 1990 Act could not be made by the Local Authority in its own name, but should rather have been in the name of a nominated official.
Held: The 1972 Act gave the authority the power. It had not been intended to make a distinction between a local authority’s powers in this respect as between civil and criminal proceedings.
Justice Silber
Times 15-Mar-2002
Food Safety Act 1990, Local Government Act 1972 222
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.167884
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent duty to leave that option to the jury.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge should have left a manslaughter verdict to the jury. His failure to do so, although fully understandable in the circumstances, was a material irregularity. ‘The public interest in the administration of justice is, in my opinion, best served if in any trial on indictment the trial judge leaves to the jury, subject to any appropriate caution or warning, but irrespective of the wishes of trial counsel, any obvious alternative offence which there is evidence to support. ‘
Lord Rodger: ‘These authorities help to identify the attitude which an appeal court must adopt in a case such as this, despite any justifiable feeling of distaste for the appellant’s approach. If the court concludes that there was a material misdirection which rendered the jury’s verdict unsafe, then it must give effect to that conclusion and quash the conviction. An unsafe verdict cannot stand just because the appellant was partly to blame for its being unsafe. ‘
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Mance
[2006] UKHL 39, [2006] 1 WLR 2154, Times 24-Jul-2006, [2007] 1 CAR 60, [2006] 4 All ER 353, [2006] Crim LR 1065, [2007] 1 Cr App R 6
Criminal Law Act 1967 6(2) 6(3)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Coutts, Regina v CACD 21-Jan-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that the judge should have left to the jury the alternative conviction for manslaughter. The victim had died through strangulation during a sexual assault by the defendant. He said it had not . .
Cited – Regina v Fairbanks CACD 1986
The defendant complained that the judge had not left an alternate verdict of careless driving to the jury where he had been charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Mustill LJ said: . .
Cited – Hunter, Moodie v The Queen PC 8-Oct-2003
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against their convictions for capital murder.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and non-capital convictions substituted. It is not enough to comply with section 2(2), for . .
Cited – Alexander Von Starck v The Queen PC 28-Feb-2000
(Jamaica) The defendant had fatally stabbed a woman. On arrest, he admitted killing her and that he had the knife which he had used to do so. He gave the police officer a pouch containing a knife, on which blood of the same group as that of the . .
Cited – Regina v Hopper CCA 1914
Lord Reading CJ said: ‘We do not assent to the suggestion that as the defence throughout the trial was accident, the judge was justified in not putting the question as to manslaughter. Whatever the line of defence adopted by counsel at the trial of . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Bullard v The Queen PC 1957
The question was whether there was evidence on which the jury could have found a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation rather than the verdict of murder which had been returned.
Held: There is naturally a tendency for an appellate . .
Cited – Regina v Porritt CCA 1961
Ashworth J said: ‘As has already been said, the issue of manslaughter was not raised at the trial, but there is ample authority for the view that notwithstanding the fact that a particular issue is not raised by the defence, it is incumbent upon the . .
Cited – Shaw and Campbell, Regina v CANI 8-Jun-2001
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying the judge should have left the alternative charge of having assisted offenders to the jury.
Held: Referring to Fairbanks: ‘It was argued on behalf of the Crown that this test was not . .
Cited – Regina v Cox (Andrew Mark) CACD 12-Apr-1995
The Court of Appeal has the power to apply the proviso preserving a conviction despite the failure of the judge at trial to mention the defence of provocation. . .
Cited – Regina v Dhillon CACD 27-Nov-1996
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the defence of provocation had not been left to the jury. The trial judge had thought that there should be a provocation direction, but neither prosecuting nor defence counsel . .
Cited – Rex v Parrott 1913
Phillimore J considered the possibility of allowing a conviction for a lesser offence than that charged and said: ‘There may be cases where, in the interests of the prisoner, a judge ought to do so; there are certainly many cases where the interests . .
Cited – Regina v McCormack CACD 1969
The defendant was charged with unlawful sexual intercourse and it was held to have been correct to leave to the jury as an alternative verdict a verdict of indecent assault. It was held as ‘plain beyond argument’ that if a man inserted his finger . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 1988
The defendant admitted paying two others to burgle his partner’s home, but said he had not anticipated violence, and appealed against his conviction for robbery, saying the judge should have left the alternative verdict to the jury. The jury, during . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 11-May-1994
When directing the jury, the judge should mention all alternative and appropriate lesser offences with explanations. The possibility of a conviction under section 47 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm should be offered to a conviction under . .
Cited – Mraz v The Queen 1995
(High Court of Australia) Fullagar J: ‘A jury which would hesitate to convict of murder may be only too glad to take a middle course which is offered to them.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Rennie Gilbert PC 21-Mar-2002
(Grenada) The defendant had successfully appealed a conviction for attempted rape. He said that he had been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, and that the judge should have given an appropriate warning to the jury. The . .
Cited – Regina v Emmett CACD 18-Jun-1999
The defendant appealed against conviction after being involved in sexual activity which he said was not intended to cause harm, and were said to be consensual, but clearly did risk harm. On the first occasion he tied a plastic bag over the head of . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant stabbed a pregnant woman. The child was born prematurely and died. The attack had been directed at the mother, and the proper offence was manslaughter.
Held: The only questions which need to be addressed are (1) whether the act . .
Cited – Regina v Larkin CCA 1943
There may be involuntary manslaughter, if the accused intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that act inadvertently caused death. Humphreys J said: ‘Where the act which a person is engaged in performing is unlawful, then if at . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell HL 1990
The defendant had hired two men to enter his former partner’s house to commit robbery. It was his defence that he did not contemplate violence, and that he was only guilty of the offence of burglary. The prosecution would not add a count of burglary . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury and Jones HL 12-May-1976
The two teenage defendants pushed a stone slab from a bridge onto an oncoming train. The slab went through the window and killed the guard. They appealed convictions for manslaughter.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. An unlawful act can found . .
Cited – Pemble v The Queen 1971
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ: ‘Whatever course counsel may see fit to take, no doubt bona fide but for tactical reasons in what he considers the best interest of his client, the trial judge must be astute to secure for the accused a fair . .
Cited – Regina v Church CCA 1965
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. After he had been unable to satisfy his female victim sexually, he had become angry and had seriously assaulted her. He mistakenly thought she was dead and tipped her in the river where she drowned.
Cited – Keeble v United States 1971
(US Supreme Court) Brennan J said: ‘Moreover, it is no answer to petitioner’s demand for a jury instruction on a lesser offense to argue that a defendant may be better off without such an instruction. True, if the prosecution has not established . .
Cited – Gillard v The Queen 2003
(High Court of Australia) Hayne J explained the effect of the majority decision in Gilbert: ‘In Gilbert, a majority of the Court concluded that if manslaughter should have been, but was not, left to a jury as an available verdict on the appellant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Jackson 1993
(Supreme Court of Canada) McLachlin J: ‘It is true that the trial judge charged the jury clearly and correctly on the mental state required to find Davy guilty of murder. It is also true that the jury found Davy guilty of murder. Nevertheless, I . .
Cited – Kwaku Mensah v The King PC 1946
(West Africa) The judge had failed to give a direction on provocation in a murder case where the issue properly arose.
Lord Goddard said: ‘But if on the whole of the evidence there arises a question whether or not the offence might be . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Daley PC 1980
(Jamaica) The defendants had an argument with the deceased, who ran from them, tripped on a concrete ramp and fell. He died a few days later. The accused had thrown stones at him while he was running from them. The prosecution alleged that he died . .
Cited – Muir v HM Advocate 1933
The jury in a murder trial had not been directed on the possible verdict of culpable homicide on the ground of diminished responsibility.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed. Lord Sands said: ‘A brutal crime had been committed, and a . .
Cited – St Paul Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v Okporuah and others ChD 10-Aug-2006
The first defendant had acquired several properties, and was due to make repayments greatly in excess of his income. A further defendant, his brother, was a solicitor who was known to have been involved in mortgage fraud and was suspected of having . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
See also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd PatC 16-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants said that the defendant had misused confidential information sent to him to found an application for a patent, claiming wrongly to have been its inventor. The claimant appealed a refusal by the court to allow amendments to the . .
Cited – Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .
Cited – Foster, Regina v; Regina v Newman etc CACD 30-Nov-2007
In each case the defendant appealed his conviction saying that since the defence which he ran included an admission of a lesser offence, the court should have left a conviction for that lesser offence as an alternative for the jury.
Held: The . .
Cited – Serrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .
Cited – Kempster, Regina v CACD 7-May-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that evidence of an ear-print expert had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The court rejected an argument based on Coutts. Ear-print evidence can be admitted provided the experts were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.243336
A jury should not be told to be careful before putting a police officer in a different position from other witnesses.
[1990] Crim L R 185
England and Wales
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192072
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the standards in 2006. The direction did not contain the key direction suggested to be compulsory by the European Court of Human Rights in Condron. Maurice Kay LJ: ‘Very likely the judge’s directions would be different if the matter were to be tried now. However, in the circumstances of this case, we do not think that any injustice whatsoever resulted from the directions which were given. No doubt as to safety of the conviction is raised in our minds by this point and, accordingly, this ground of appeal is also rejected.’
Maurice Kay LJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 195
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Hawkins (Paul) CACD 2-Aug-1996
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, . .
Cited – Regina v Austin CACD 17-May-1996
The defendant appealed, complaining of the relationship between an important prosecution witness, and the media. . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Mitchell CACD 1977
The court considered the effect of changes in the law after a conviction on applications for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Lane LJ said: ‘This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It should be . .
Cited – Regina v West (Rosemary) CACD 3-Apr-1996
Payments to witnesses in criminal trials by media need investigation and control. Nevertheless, the fact that a number of witnesses had sold their stories to the media before the trial, which was disclosed to the defence before or during the trial, . .
Cited – Regina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.239055
The end of a criminal trial is not necessarily the end of the court’s power to control the evidence submitted.
Wright J
[1894] 1 QB 420
England and Wales
Cited – West Yorkshire Police v Lincoln Crown Court and Another Admn 27-Apr-2005
Police officers had unlawfully tape recorded private and confidential conversations between a suspect in custody and his solicitor. The police officers who had been asked to investigate the complaint appealed against an order saying that the tapes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.224941
(1846) 15 M and W 169
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Rankine CACD 1986
R appealed his conviction for unlawfully supplying a controlled drug. Officers claimed to have seen him, but the court agreed not to order disclosure of their observation location.
Held: The appeal failed. It was important not to discourage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223566
Effect on trial of admission by mistake of prejudicial evidence.
(1969) 53 Cr App R 535
England and Wales
Cited – Errol Arthurton v The Queen PC 27-May-2004
PC (British Virgin Islands) The defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse, saying the judge had failed to prevent inadmissible evidence being given to the court, namely a mention by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.200287
Counsel must give priority to a listing in the Court of Appeal over a commitment in a lower court.
Lord Woolf LCJ
Times 10-Mar-2004
England and Wales
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.194567
Appeal by way of case stated in respect of the decision by the Magistrates refusing to allow the appellant to change his plea of guilty to various breaches of a criminal behaviour order which was imposed on him. The case raises issues about the circumstances in which a defendant will be allowed to vacate his plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court.
[2020] EWHC 820 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650580
‘When considering an application to the Court to prohibit the dealing with or disposal of assets within the jurisdiction made by the National Crime Agency, at the request of the Central Authority of a friendly foreign state by way of Mutual Legal Assistance, what is the just balance to strike between the right of a respondent to such an application to inspect the request forming the jurisdictional basis of the Court’s power to grant the order and the general confidentiality of executive state to state communications? ‘
Gross, Hamblen LJJ, ir Colin Rimer
[2016] EWCA Civ 760, [2016] CP Rep 43, [2016] WLR(D) 408, [2016] WLR 4375, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 497
England and Wales
Cited – ZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.567260
Interlocutory appeal under section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 against an order that, in accordance with section 44(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, (the 2003 Act) the forthcoming trial of the defendants should be conducted by a judge alone.
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
[2010] EWCA Crim 1755, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 5
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 3591), Criminal Justice Act 2003 44(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.421026
If a stage-coach be robbed of a parcel which was intended to be conveyed from one place to another: the things stolen may be laid to be the property of the coachman.
[1730] EngR 51, (1730-1815) 2 Leach 862, (1730) 168 ER 530
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.387680
[1835] EngR 910, (1835) 1 M and Rob 503, (1835) 174 ER 174 (A)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.316418
Two References by the Criminal Cases Review Commission raise the question whether it is ever open to the Court of Criminal Appeal to conclude that a conviction is safe in a case where the judge has directed a jury to convict following the recent decision of the House of Lords in R v Wang [2005] UKHL 9, which held that such a direction should never be given.
[2006] EWCA Crim 1611, [2006] 1 WLR 3181, [2007] Crim LR 61, [2007] 1 Cr App R 13
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.270249
The defendant complained that on a retrial of his case, the judge had admitted bad character evidence which had not been admissible at the time of the first trial. He said at if the first trial had been conducted without error he would have been tried without such evidence.
Held: The evidence was properly admitted because of the coming into effect of the 2003 Act. The defendant had not argued as to any fundamental unfairness in the law.
Times 30-May-2006
Criminal Justice Act 2003 99-110
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.242448
Challenge to re-instatement by Magistrates of prosecution dismissed earlier in the same day
[2004] EWHC 1553 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.226889
(Supreme Court of Mauritius) The appellant had appeared three times before the court before the date of trial. On the morning of trial he produced a letter from a member of the Bar stating that he had just been instructed for the defence, but as he was engaged elsewhere and had not had time to study the case he must ask for a postponement. The trial judge refused.
Held: His decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. After referring to section 10(2) of the Constitution: ‘The all important words of paragraph (d) in my view are ‘shall be permitted to defend himself’. The duty on the Court is clear and is impliedly twofold: an accused party must be given a reasonable opportunity to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice and, at the trial of the case, the legal representative must be given full latitude – in accordance with the law of this country – to defend the accused. On the other hand, the duty to retain the services of a legal representative of his choice lies on an accused party and the words ‘of his choice’ are here again important: they necessarily connote the idea that, if he has a wide choice from among the members of the Bar, the responsibility for the choice is his, not that of the Court. The duty cast on the Court is purely a passive one in so far as the presence of counsel at the trial is concerned, while the responsibility for the briefing of the legal representative and ensuring his presence in Court devolves from the very words of the Constitution on the accused party.’ The provisions of the Constitution were never intended to be a cloak for the laches of an accused party.’
Rivalland CJ
[1968] MR 122
England and Wales
Applied – Mohammadally v The State 2000
(Supreme Court of Mauritius) The appellant had dispensed with the services of her counsel four days before the date of trial and had not taken steps to engage another. The trial judge refused to grant her a postponement, on the ground that she could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.223461
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper remedy lies by way of appeal.
Staughton LJ, Simon Brown LJ
[1996] 2 WLR 681, [1997] QB 1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v York Magistrate Court ex parte Grimes Admn 12-May-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of the decision of the magistrates to commit her to prison for non-payment of fines. The had found wilful neglect to pay.
Held: The magistrates had erred in thinking that the variability of the defendant’s . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v James HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to an indefinite term for public protection, but the determinate part of his sentence had passed with no consideration as to whether his continued detention was required.
Held: The post tariff detention was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.199787
The running of the 110 day maximum period for detention after which a trial must have begun, was interrupted when the accused began to serve a sentence of imprisonment on another matter. He was no longer being detained because of the committal warrant.
1959 JC 71
Scotland
Applied – Gary Follen v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 8-Mar-2001
PC High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) The defendant said that a trial under the section infringed his right to a fair trial, because of a ten month delay by the prosecutor. On arrest he had been recalled to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.195986
cs When a defendant has been convicted of a Bail Act offence, the court should review the remand status of the defendant, including the conditions of that bail, in respect of the main proceedings for which bail had been granted.
Failure by the defendant to surrender or a conviction for failing to surrender to bail in connection with the main proceedings will be a significant factor weighing against the regranting of bail or, in the case of offences which do not normally give rise to a custodial sentence, in favour of trial in the absence of the offender.
Whether or not an immediate custodial sentence has been imposed for the Bail Act offence, the court may, having reviewed the defendant’s remand status, also remand the defendant in custody in the main proceedings.’
Times 20-May-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 589
England and Wales
Cited – Wiggins, Regina (on the Application Of) v Harrow Crown Court Admn 20-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed against refusal of bail. He had failed to attend court in time of the day of his trial and said he had overlooked the date.
Held: Collins J said: ‘[T]he question of whether bail should be continued or removed in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.197751
A CPS decision not to prosecute was quashed because the decision-maker had failed to have regard to one of the matters identified in the relevant part of The Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Kennedy LJ
[1995] 2 All ER 43, [1995] 1 CAR 136, [1995] 1 Cr App R 136
England and Wales
Cited – Guest v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 5-Mar-2009
The claimant, the victim of an alleged assault, challenged the failure of the respondent to quash a conditional caution given to the assailant. The respondent accepted that a decision to prosecute would have been appropriate.
Held: The offence . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.188802
1965 JC 32
Scotland
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.445393
The claimant, who was suspected of terrorist activities but against whom no criminal charges had been established, complained that a control order imposed on him was so extensive as to amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Held: The order was a nullity. It was so extensive as to amount to a deprivation of liberty and as such was ultra vires the Act. However the review procedure was not incompatible with the right to a fair hearing. The court gave a certificate permitting an appeal direct to the House of Lords.
Ouseley J
[2007] EWHC 651 (Admin)
Prevention of Terrorism Act 1005 2
England and Wales
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AL Admn 17-Aug-2007
The claimant sought to challenge a control order made against him under the 2005 Act. He had not cross examined the prosecution witnesses saying that the procedure was unfair in that he had not been allowed to see all the evidence against him. He . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.250595
A fraud occurred in respect of the repairing of ambulances in a garage operated by a company in which the defendant Dickson was the major shareholder and where the defendant Bryant worked. An employee of the company at the garage would make an estimate of the work which had to be done, and where that differed from the work specified in the note the sanction of a supervising mechanic named Campbell was required. He either consciously or unconsciously, facilitated the frauds which were perpetrated. The prosecution had taken a statement from Campbell but they did not furnish a copy of the statement to the defence and they did not call Campbell as a witness at the trial. On the appeal it was argued that: ‘. . . the prosecution, having taken a statement from Campbell and having decided not to call him as a witness, were under a duty to furnish the defence with a copy of the statement, in order to enable the defendant to decide whether they should call him.’
Held: The proposition that it is the duty of the prosecution to place before the court all the evidence known to him, whether or not it is probative of the guilt of the accused person, was erroneous. The principle of open justice did not extend that far. ‘A prosecutor is under no such duty. His duty is to prosecute, not to defend. If he happens to have information from a credible witness which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, or, although not inconsistent with his guilt, is helpful to the accused, the prosecutor should make such witness available to the defence.’
Lord Goddard: ‘It is said that it was the duty of the prosecution to have supplied the defence with a statement which Campbell had admittedly made to the prosecution. The prosecution, for reasons which one can well understand, did not call Campbell. Is there a duty in such circumstances on the prosecution to supply a copy of the statement which they have taken to the defence? In the opinion of the Court there is no such duty, nor has there ever been. In the first place, if they had supplied a copy of the statement of Campbell, that would not have enabled the defence to put the statement in. The statement which Campbell made could have become evidence only if he had been called as a witness. But it is said that it was the duty of the prosecution to put that statement at the disposal of the defence. In the opinion of the Court, the duty of the prosecution in such a case is to make available to the defence a witness whom the prosecution know can, if he is called, give material evidence. That they did in this case, because when a letter was sent by the defence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the reply of the Director of Public Prosecutions showed quite clearly that the prosecution did not intend to call him, but he added: ‘There is no objection to your taking a statement from Campbell if you wish to do so’. That was said well before the trial. It was said after the close of the police court proceedings, when the defence knew that Campbell was not being called by the prosecution, and therefore could quite well themselves have gone to Campbell and taken a statement from him. Campbell was at the Court. Who brought him to the Court I do not know, nor is it material to inquire, but the defence could have called him if they had liked. No doubt Mr. Scott Henderson would not have been so unwise as to call him without having a statement from him, but if the defence did not choose to take a statement and find out what he was prepared to say, that is not a matter with which the prosecution are concerned. In the opinion of the Court it is quite wrong to say that it was the duty of the prosecution in these circumstances, having made Campbell available to the defence as a witness if they wished to call him, to go further and produce the statement which he had made.’
Diplock LJ, Lord Goddard
(1946) 31 Cr App R 146
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
Overruled – 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 . .
Considered – Regina v Lawson CACD 1-Jun-1989
The prosecution did not give the defence a copy of the statement of a witness as to material facts which supported the defence case because it considered that it might require to use the statement if the person who had made it were called as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.193796
[2003] EWHC 353 (Admin)
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 1
England and Wales
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.184983
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were applied. The defendants challenged the application of the new procedures other than to the initial charges. Two offences had been committed before the Act.
Held: Proceedings against a defendant did not become proceedings in respect of a new charge as a result of prosecutorial substitution. The substituted cases were therefore properly dealt with under the new procedure. The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so.
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Times 04-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin), [2002] 2 Cr App R 40, [2002] 1 WLR 3073
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
England and Wales
Cited – Rex v Norfolk Justices and Another ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1950
The justices, having convicted a defendant, purported first to commit him to quarter sessions for sentence but the case was not one to which the sub-section applied.
Held: The committal was a nullity and the justices were entitled to proceed . .
Cited – Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, Regina (on The Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates’ Court Admn 30-Apr-2010
The claimant a retired Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision to commit him for trial on a charge of unlawful imprisonment. The suspect and now prosecutor had been arrested and held in custody, but without the necessary timely review . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.172210
[1999] EWHC Admin 613
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1), Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis CA 30-Mar-2000
Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.139877
Appeal from restraint orders.
[1998] EWCA Civ 1175, [1999] 1 All ER 84
England and Wales
See also – Government of the United States of America v Barnette and another Admn 2002
The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had . .
Appeal from – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
See also – Government of the United States of America v Barnette and another Admn 2002
The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144654
Although the rules specified that a form should be used when making application to extend the time for which money could be held pending an application under the Act for its forfeiture, there was no enforceable duty to prove that the form had been used, and its absence was not a fatal flaw in the application. The form was not an originating process, it was not a document served on the respondents, the defendant would be notified directly. No prejudice was established by any failure to us the form.
Times 30-Mar-2000, Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 5564, (2000) 164 JP 265
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1), Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Abecasis Admn 29-Jun-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.85381
The defendants, awaiting trial on charges for supplying drugs, appealed against the refusal of bail.
Held: It is competent before the sheriff, and by way of appeal by Bill of Suspension, to challenge the grant of a warrant for full committal, either on the basis that it is defective in form (there being three necessary requisites) or because the granting of the warrant would amount to oppression. The Bills of Suspension were not competent because they did not contain contentions that the warrants were either defective in form or oppressive.
Lord Carloway LJC
[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 151, 2014 SLT 173, 2014 SCCR 109, 2013 GWD 40-762, 2014 SCL 120
Scotland
Cited – CMcL v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 28-Mar-2013
The defendant, accused of murder appealed against refusal of bail, denying the existence of a prima facie case against him.
Held: Jie Lien was not authority for the proposition that a warrant can be suspended in the course of a bail appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.519282
Lord Justice Thomas
[2007] EWCA Crim 1339
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.253438
Alleged assault on an employee of London Transport. Failure of prosecution to disclose existence of independent witness.
Moses J
[2003] EWHC 620 (Admin)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.184976
Claimant’s claim to challenge the decision of the Defendant not to prosecute a suspect for the offences of rape, sexual assault against a child and/or any other offence against the Claimant.
Lord Justice Bean
[2020] EWHC 870 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.650110
Claim by the National Crime Agency under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the recovery of property and bank accounts owned by various Defendants alleged to be property obtained through unlawful conduct.
[2017] EWHC 27 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.573386
Lord Justice Davis
[2014] EWHC 3988 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.539370
Magistrates who had dismissed a prosecution for the failure of the prosecutor to attend court and without any consideration of the merits, were able to hear a subsequent summons issued on same facts.
Times 18-May-1998, Times 18-May-1998, Gazette 10-Jun-1998
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 15
England and Wales
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.80338
51198/08 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 374
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472983
The defendant appealed by case stated against an order allowing the amendment of an information against him. He was first accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for testing after being stopped and suspected of driving with excess alcohol. The officer had however accepted that he had a proper reason for not providing a speciment of breath, and the defendant then went on to refuse a blood specimen. At court, and on being told of he situation, the respondent had applied for an amendment to allege failure to supply a blood specimen, and the magistrates acceded.
Held: The magistrates had correctly considered the issues identified in the case of Williams when making such an amendment. Though they had not specifically referred to the issue of delay, it was in their minds. Not every bench would have granted the amendment, but it was not outside the band of reasonable responses. The appeal failed.
Foskett J
[2013] EWHC 552 (Admin)
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 123
Cited – Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .
Cited – Williams v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Jul-2009
Thomas LJ said: ‘When the magistrates were faced with the application for an amendment, the law was clear and remains clear. The principles are set out in Section 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act [1980] and in the single decision of this . .
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472812
The defendant sought judicial review of the decision to rescind his bail.
Gross LJ, Gloster J
[2013] EWHC 309 (Admin)
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472671
The company sought judicial review of a refusal to dismiss charges against them under the 2006 Regulations as an abuse of process.
Held: Magistrates have no power of review of a prosecutorial decision other than through an abuse of process application. In this case the Council had followed their own procedures in moving from their first complaint and subsequent visit through to the issuing of the summons, allowing the company appropriate opportunity to clean the premises or to close them until cleaned.
Simon J
[2013] EWHC 898 (Admin)
Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006
Cited – QRS v Beach and Another QBD 26-Sep-2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants.
Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472681
The claimant appealed against the respondent’s refusal to vary conditions attached to him under the 2011 Act.
Wilkie J
[2013] EWHC 843 (Admin)
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011
England and Wales
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472573
If after the defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty it becomes clear that the defendant did not appreciate the elements of the offence to which he was pleading guilty, then it may be appropriate to permit him to withdraw his plea.
Glidewell LJ
[1983] 3 All ER 689
England and Wales
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: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.244871
‘1. The Court of Appeal should concentrate on the single and simple question ‘does it think that the verdict is unsafe’.
2. This exercise does not involve trying the case again. Rather it requires the court, where conviction has followed trial and no fresh evidence has been introduced on the appeal, to examine the evidence given at trial and to gauge the safety of the verdict against that background.
3. The court should eschew speculation as to what may have influenced the jury to its verdict.
4. The Court of Appeal must be persuaded that the verdict is unsafe but if, having considered the evidence, the court has a significant sense of unease about the correctness of the verdict based on a reasoned analysis of the evidence, it should allow the appeal.’
Kerr LCJ
[2004] NICA 34
Northern Ireland
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Livingstone CANI 25-Jun-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that police officers had fabricated a confession, and had severely mistreated another detainee to concoct further evidence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Had the material . .
Cited – Dorrian, Rex v CANI 13-Sep-2022
Appeal against conviction for a single count of manslaughter . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.216023
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: The Court of Appeal should reach its own view based on the unadorned words of the Act which stated its duty. It should look back and ask whether the new evidence placed before it on appeal might have affected the jury’s verdict.
The question of whether there might or might not be a retrial was not relevant. Lord Bingham said: ‘I am not persuaded that the House laid down any incorrect principle in Stafford, so long as the Court of Appeal bears very clearly in mind that the question for its consideration is whether the conviction is safe and not whether the accused is guilty. But the test advocated by counsel in Stafford and by Mr Mansfield in this appeal does have a dual virtue to which the speeches I have quoted perhaps gave somewhat inadequate recognition. First, it reminds the Court of Appeal that it is not and should never become the primary decision-maker. Secondly, it reminds the Court of Appeal that it has an imperfect and incomplete understanding of the full processes which led the jury to convict. The Court of Appeal can make its assessment of the fresh evidence it has heard, but save in a clear case it is at a disadvantage in seeking to relate that evidence to the rest of the evidence which the jury heard. For these reasons it will usually be wise for the Court of Appeal, in a case of any difficulty, to test their own provisional view by asking whether the evidence, if given at the trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict. If it might, the conviction must be thought to be unsafe.’
and . . ‘It will usually be wise for the Court of Appeal, in a case of any difficulty, to test their own provisional view by asking whether the evidence, if given at the trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict. If it might, the conviction must be thought to be unsafe.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 18-Dec-2001, Gazette 14-Feb-2002, [2001] UKHL 66, [2002] 1 WLR 72, [2002] 1 Cr App R 34, [2002] 1 All ER 524
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2
England and Wales
Cited – Stirland v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1944
The House considered what was the appropriate test for allowing a conviction to stand despite the finding of an irregularity in the trial.
Held: The House must be satisfied that there was ‘a situation a reasonable jury, after being properly . .
Approved – Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
Appeal from – Regina v Pendleton CACD 22-Jun-2000
The court set out the legal principles which apply to a proper assessment of the safety of a conviction in an appeal involving an application to adduce fresh evidence. . .
Followed – Regina v Paul Alexander Cleeland CACD 13-Feb-2002
The applicant appealed a conviction from 1973 for murder. The essential question was as to whether the court on an appeal was to apply the standards as at the date of the trial, or at the date of the appeal.
Held: Following Pendleton, the sole . .
Cited – Regina v Maynard, Dudley etc CACD 31-Jul-2002
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. They alleged that the police record of an interview central to the cases had been falsified.
Held: To allow an appeal the court must conclude that the conviction is unsafe. The . .
Cited – Poole and Mills v Regina CACD 17-Jun-2003
The case was a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendants had been convicted in 1990 of murder. The House of Lords had dismissed an earlier appeal. Police officers had allowed statements to be put forward which were false in . .
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 – Winzar v Regina CACD 20-Dec-2002
The defendant appealed conviction for the murder of her husband. It was said she had injected him with a fatal dose of insulin. He was incapacitated but not diabetic.
Held: The deceased’s brain had been destroyed before any prosecution was . .
Cited – Deans, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2004
In 1989 the defendant was convicted of assorted serious drugs crimes. His case came before the court once more but on the basis that the evidence against him had been fabricated by police officers who had subsequently been discredited.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v James Hanratty (Deceased) CACD 10-May-2002
Posthumous Appeal – Clear Purpose and Care Needed
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected.
Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Cited – Kelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .
Cited – Kai-Whitewind, Regina v CACD 3-May-2005
The defendant was convicted of infanticide and murder. The experts differed as to the cause of death. She appealed her conviction saying that the experts in effect cancelled each other out.
Held: Her appeal failed. The jury was entitled to . .
Cited – Raja v Van Hoogstraten ChD 19-Dec-2005
Damages were claimed after claimant alleged involvement by the defendant in the murder of the deceased. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of murder and manslaughter, but the allegation was now pursued. The defendant had since failed to . .
Cited – Bowman, Regina v CACD 2-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction of murder saying that evidence of other pathologists undermined the evidence given by similar experts for the crown.
Held: The court took the opportunity to give guidance on the provision of expert . .
Cited – Hendy, Regina v CACD 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for a brutal murder. He had pleaded diminished responsibility. There were now no papers from the trial. Medical evidence now suggested that at the time of the trial he would have suffered a . .
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 . .
Cited – Steele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
Cited – George v Regina CACD 15-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of the BBC presenter Jill Dando. He said that the prosecution had relied heavily on the discovery, a year later, of a single particle of firearm discharge residue.
Held: The evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Stock CACD 8-Aug-2008
The defendant sought to appeal his conviction in 1970 for robbery. He had refused to attend an identity parade but was then confronted with the main witness. Witnesses had also been shown photographs from which they were said to have selected the . .
Cited – ZT (Kosovo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 4-Feb-2009
The claimant sought asylum. The respondent on her appeal certified that the claim was clearly unfounded. The House was asked how further submissions might be made and what approach should be taken on a request for judicial review of such a decision. . .
Cited – Siddall, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 16-Mar-2009
The claimant had been imprisoned then released after his conviction for sexual assaults. He appealed against rejection of his claim for compensation. The criterion for compensation was demonstrating that something had ‘gone seriously wrong in the . .
Cited – Carter, Regina v CACD 31-Jul-2009
Appeal from conviction for murder. . .
Cited – Noye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
Cited – Dizaei v Regina CACD 16-May-2011
The defendant had been convicted of misconduct in a public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He now appealed saying that he could demonstrate that the principal witness was dishonest. The prosecution replied that . .
Cited – S and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2012
Four defendants appealed against convictions for child sex abuse. The convictions had taken place at a time when current guidance to examining physicians did not apply. In each case the defendants consented to new evidence from the prosecution.
Cited – Cadman v Regina CACD 3-Jul-2008
Appeal from conviction of fraud – material provided to the jury after retirement which had not been used during the trial and made available to be challenged.
Held: Conviction set aside: ‘For the jury to use the extraneous material provided . .
Cited – Dorrian, Rex v CANI 13-Sep-2022
Appeal against conviction for a single count of manslaughter . .
Cited – Regina v Pollock CANI 24-Sep-2004
‘1. The Court of Appeal should concentrate on the single and simple question ‘does it think that the verdict is unsafe’.
2. This exercise does not involve trying the case again. Rather it requires the court, where conviction has followed trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.167010
The court gave its reasons for allowing the defendant’s appeal against his conviction for entering into the UK without a passport. He had given his passport to an agent purporting to arrange his entry and under whose control he was. He claimed refugee status from Eritrea.
Held: The question was whether this amounted to a reasonable excuse for not having it. The judge had been wrong to decide that this could not amount to a reasonable excuse. Firstly, the judge should have awaited the completion of the evidence before such a ruling.
Toulson LJ, MacKay J, Sir David Calvert-Smith
[2013] EWCA Crim 435
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004
England and Wales
Cited – Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) v Isleworth Crown Court Admn 31-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472538
21580/07 – HEJUD, [2013] ECHR 270, 21565/07, 21572/07, 21575/07
European Convention on Human Rights
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472464
