Information obtained directly from a restraint order was not to be used against the restrainee.
Times 21-Apr-1995
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 78
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81800
Judicial review is the preferred procedure over habeas corpus for a wrongful committal by magistrates.
Times 07-Dec-1995
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81820
An authenticated copy of a foreign conviction is admissible in extradition proceedings.
Times 22-Jul-1994
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81739
Practitioners must make themselves aware of reported practice directions in the court before which they appeared. Defending counsel, having been misled as to his client’s conviction history made an agreement with the prosecution about character evidence. That arrangement unravelled, leading to the abandonment of the trial, and a wasted costs order. In this case that was unfair. The defence team had requested lists of previous convictions and they had not been provided, and the prosecution had also contributed to counsel’s error.
Times 18-Apr-2000, Gazette 29-Jun-2000
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81638
A magistrate has an obligation to allow the side against whom a costs order is made to see the basis of the bill, but in absence of a request could proceed.
Times 19-Aug-1997
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81569
The Court of Appeal had set aside wasted costs orders made in the Crown Court against four different firms of solicitors.
Held: The House set aside the orders but was unable to award to the firms their costs of the successful appeals. There is no provision to order costs from Central funds on appeals against costs orders in criminal cases. It was just for a successful litigant, and perhaps a fortiori a successful appellant, to be able to recover his costs from someone, but it was not always so: ‘it is relatively commonplace for a party who is the victim of a misjudgment by an inferior court or tribunal to have to seek relief by an application for judicial review in circumstances where the Divisional Court cannot hold another party or the inferior tribunal itself liable in costs and there is no power to award costs from public funds.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Gazette 14-Jul-1993, [1994] 1 AC 22, [1993] 2 All ER 769, [1993] 2 WLR 934
England and Wales
Appeal from – Holden and Co v Crown Prosecution Service (No 2); Similar Cases CA 8-Jan-1992
The Civil Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to award Costs from central funds and they should be made in favour of successful applicants against wasted costs orders in criminal proceedings. . .
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 12-May-2003
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion.
Held: The making . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81435
A private prosecution of a youth for an offence after he had accepted a caution was not an abuse of process, since the cautioner had warned him of the possibility. Poole J said: ‘The right of private prosecutions is subject to a number of procedural limitations, eg justices’ refusal to enter a summons, the Attorney- General’s termination of proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi, the Attorney-General’s power in relation to vexatious litigants, the Director of Public Prosecutor’s power to take over private prosecutions and terminate them, whether by discontinuance, withdrawal or offering no evidence, and refusal of consent where consent is a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Nothing that I have heard in the course of argument here has persuaded me that we should in effect add what would amount to a further category of constraint to this list fitted to cases in which a caution has been issued. Nor, speaking for myself, am I persuaded that there is likely to be a flood of private prosecutions in cases where cautions have been administered should this appeal be allowed. The defendants argue that the offender’s admission, explicit in every caution case, could be used against him in a subsequent prosecution, but that is surely a matter for consideration under the court’s discretion both at common law and under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’
Schiemann LJ and Poole J
Times 03-Feb-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 854
Cited – Jones v Whalley Admn 10-May-2005
The defendant had been cautioned by the police for an assault on the claimant. The claimant then began a private prosecution which the magistrates stayed as an abuse of process.
Held: The caution administered was not simply a conviction so as . .
Cited – Jones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81288
The judge’s warning to the jury about its dangers is needed, when the jury were being asked to consider uncorroborated visual identification evidence, unless, and exceptionally, the evidence is of such good quality as to stand without a warning. In this case though, although the direction was defective, the two eye witnesses had known the defendant for several years.
Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994, Gazette 12-Oct-1994, Times 07-Jul-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1437
Cited – Bertrand Roberts and Roland Roberts v The State PC 15-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellants had been convicted of murder and their capital sentences commuted. They now sought to challenge the convictions as to the admission of and directions given on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80681
Justices may acquit of theft and convict of handling where alternate charge.
Times 10-Feb-1994
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80683
A judge had a duty to withdraw an unclear case from the jury with or without representations from the Defendant.
Times 12-Oct-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79785
Warby J
[2020] EW Misc 21 (CCrimC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.655650
A search warrant should be issued on behalf of a foreign court only after a fullest consideration of the law, but it could be used to allow removal of material as evidence of foreign offences. The court heard an application to a Crown Court judge under the 1990 International Co-operation Act. The United States authorities investigating money laundering had sought assistance because a partner in an English firm of accountants had helped to set up schemes and advised.
Held: The court criticised the cursory nature of the proceedings before the circuit judge. McCowan LJ: ‘an intrusion into the liberty of the subject cannot be allowed to go through on the nod’. No reasons had been given by the judge, and the extent to which reasons were required depended on what had gone before. The judge had not had an opportunity to pre-read the information and the draft warrant. He admitted unfamiliarity with the relevant statutory provisions, and McCowan LJ said that there should have been a short statement of his reasons for granting the warrant ‘so that it could be apparent that the judge had taken appropriate matters into account’.
McCowan LJ
Times 21-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995, [1991] 93 Cr App R 60
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 19(3)(a)
England and Wales
Approved – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88091
A Crown Court may give a private prosecutor the right to conduct a trial in person, and without legal representation.
Times 01-Dec-1994
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27(2)(c)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88093
A Crown Court Judge need not give reasons for his refusing leave to appeal out of time.
Ind Summary 13-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88108
A fresh charge was not an abuse of process unless its only purpose is to extend the custody time limits.
Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88111
One reason only is needed for commitment of person over 21. The situation is different where the defendant is under 21.
Times 03-Jan-1997
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 82(6)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88117
It was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for a prosecutor to refuse to disclose witness statements in a summary case so that he could know in detail the case against him. The margin of appreciation given to signatory states allowed that.
Times 25-Feb-1999
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88123
Justices having decided that material they had seen was inadmissible must disqualify themselves from the trial.
Times 22-Feb-1995, Gazette 29-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88088
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.
Lord Justice Leggatt and Sir Iain Glidewell
Times 05-Apr-1996
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 56(1)
England and Wales
Cited – S v Recorder of Manchester and Others HL 1971
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88125
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
[2018] UKPC 5
Commonwealth
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605857
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution – Grounds for refusing execution
[2013] EUECJ C-396/11, [2013] WLR(D) 28, [2013] 1 QB 1031, [2013] 3 WLR 681, [2013] All ER (EC) 410
European
Opinion – Ministerul Public v Radu ECJ 18-Oct-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters – Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Whether it is open to the executing Member . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605758
The claimant had begun a private prosecution against his former wife, but the prosecution had been taken over and no evidence offered by the DPP. He now appealed under the CPS’s Victim’s Right to Review Guidance.
Holroyde LJ, Nicola Davies J
[2018] EWHC 327 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 121
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605699
Unreported, 30 July 2001, [2001] EWHC (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – In re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD 22-Apr-2004
A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.199328
[2019] EWCA Crim 86
England and Wales
Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.633280
Appeal from refusal of Magistrates to allow adjournment and to state a case. The complainant and witness had been unable to attend after an overnight multiple bereavement.
Treacy LJ, Seeney J
[2017] EWHC 3444 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.602582
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Held: The reasonable time guarantee afforded by Article 6.1 does apply to proceedings before the magistrates court for the enforcement of a confiscation order. In this case a stay on the enforcement was ordered.
Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Jackson
[2003] EWHC 2294 (Admin), Times 22-Oct-2003
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1, Criminal Justice Act 1988 73(6)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Chichester Justices ex parte Crowther Admn 14-Oct-1998
The defendant sought judicial review of an order made in 1998 issuing a warrant for his committal for failure to pay a confiscation order made in 1991. He had served 6 years imprisonment, and in default of payment a further 18 months. He was . .
Cited – Eckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh PC 5-Feb-2001
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .
Cited – Phillips v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Jul-2001
Having been convicted of drug trafficking, an application was made for a confiscation under the 1994 Act. On the civil balance of proof, and applying the assumptions under the Act, an order was made. The applicant claimed that his article 6 rights . .
Cited – Regina v Harrow Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions 1991
In order to use the power to issue a warrant of commitment, committing the defaulter to custody, the court must conduct a fair and public hearing to decide what is the appropriate order to make in all the circumstances. The power to issue the . .
Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Cited – Howarth v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Sep-2000
The defendant had been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, but the crown appealed, and two years later, a custodial sentence was substituted.
Held: The delay was a breach of the Convention’s reasonable time requirement under article 6 of . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) CACD 12-Jul-2001
When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.186713
[2017] EWCA Crim 1627
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601859
The claimant sought to withdraw her notice abandoning her appeal, saying that it had been under pressure from her former solicitors.
[2017] EWCA Crim 2066
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601862
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from a pblic meeting before it began, and was accused of having kicked the PCSO who removed her. Her main grievance was that the Crown Court should have dealt with a defence of lawful self-defence and having failed to do so, rendered her conviction unsafe.
Held: The issue of self-defence might have arisen, but the claimant had denied the assault alleged. The denial was inconsistent with the concept of having so acted in self defence: ‘Indeed, it was directly contrary to that defence.’
The four questions originally presented to the Crown Court, though framed as if they were questions of law, were all questions that go to its findings of fact. As such they were misconceived.
Lindblom LJ, Edis J
[2017] EWHC 3118 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Mildenhall Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Forest Heath District Council; Regina v North West Suffolk (Mildenhall) Magistrates’ Court ex parte Forest Heath District Council CA 16-Apr-1997
The Magistrates appealed against an order of mandamus requiring a case to be stated after rejecting the request by the authority as frivolous. The authority had sought to prevent the emission of noise from land used for a Motocross racing track.
Cited – Bracegirdle v Oxley and Cobley 1947
The facts proved or admitted pointed inescapably to the conclusion that the drivers had driven dangerously. But the justices, in defiance of Divisional Court authority, concluded that the driving was not dangerous. The point has been decided . .
Mentioned – Regina v Reigate Justices, ex parte Counsell 1984
. .
Cited – The Director of Public Prosecutions v Bailey PC 15-Dec-1993
Court of Appeal of Jamaica – A lawfully armed Jamaican policeman fell into confrontation with two others. During the confrontation he shot one of them and claimed he did so in self-defence.
Held: In those circumstances it was clear that . .
Cited – Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Woodman 1994
. .
Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Cited – Laporte and Another v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 31-Oct-2014
Turner J setout a series of propositions relating to the use of force in excluding people from public meetings: ‘i) Those running a public meeting, including local authorities, have a common law power (or perhaps duty in certain circumstances) to . .
Cited – Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-May-2008
The defendant challenged his conviction for obstructing a police officer and threatening behaviour. The officer had taken hold of him to restrain him, not intending to arrest him, but only to establish whether he was a person they were looking for. . .
Cited – Regina v Fennell CACD 1971
A father was accused of assaulting a police constable in order to release his son from custody. He pleaded self defence, saying that he had believed the arrest unlawful.
Held: The defence failed. A defendant seeking to justify an assault, . .
Cited – Bird, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-1985
The court considered the factors to be accounted in a defence of self-defence. Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘If the defendant is proved to have been attacking or retaliating or revenging himself, then he was not truly acting in self-defence. Evidence that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601444
Application by the Crown Prosecution Service for judicial review seeking an order quashing a costs order made against it and made under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (the 1985 Act) and the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulation 1986 (the Regulations).
Sharp LJ, Julian Knowles j
[2017] EWHC 2987 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599707
Application by the Defendant in these proceedings, to set aside the property freezing order, on the grounds that the ARA has no good arguable claim to the Property; that the order was obtained by the Claimant in breach of her duty to make full and frank disclosure to the Judge; and that the proceedings are an abuse of process as constituting an attempt to relitigate an issue that has already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Stanley Burnton J
[2007] EWHC 112 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.248831
A judge should withdraw a case which was based on poor identification evidence, and the prosecution must be sure to disclose all identification evidence. ‘In a case dependent on visual identification, and particularly where that is the only evidence, Turnbull makes it clear that it is incumbent on a trial Judge to place before the Jury any specific weaknesses which can arguably be said to have been exposed in the evidence. And it is not sufficient for the Judge to invite the Jury to take into account what counsel for the defence says about the specific weaknesses. Needless to say the Judge must deal with the specific weaknesses in a coherent manner so that the cumulative impact of those specific weaknesses is fairly placed before the Jury.’
Steyn LJ
Times 30-Jun-1993, Independent 29-Jun-1993, [1994] 98 Cr App R 313
England and Wales
Cited – McGreevy v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1973
No Need for Direction on Circumstantial Evidence
M was charged with murdering Margaret Magee in her house. no one claimed to have seen the murder and the evidence was entirely circumstantial. When he was first tried, the jury failed to reach a verdict, but at a subsequent trial he was found guilty . .
Cited – Regina v Elliott CACD 22-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed from convictions of wounding with intent, and murder. The issue was one of identification, and he criticised the absence of a full Turnbull direction.
Held: A Turnbull warning should warn the jury of the dangers inherent . .
Cited – John v The State PC 16-Mar-2009
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The evidence against him was of identification by a man, also criminally involved, who had been given immunity. No identification parade was held.
Held: It was clear from . .
Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
Cited – Yaryare and Others v Regina CACD 13-Oct-2020
Appeal from convictions of public order offences – challenges to use of identification evidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.86661
The claimant challenged the decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refuse to make a reference in respect of two convictions of the claimant
[2019] EWHC 183 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.633173
The court was asked whether magistrates’ courts have a discretion to extend the time to state a case after the expiration of the 21 days specified in section 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) as the time within which an application for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court must be made.
Sharp LJ, Dove J
[2017] EWHC 2869 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 759
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 111(2)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599414
The defendant was convicted of theft. It was suggested that he might have been guilty of obtaining by deception. The court considered it ‘a purely technical question whether at the end of the day the proper offence is one of theft or obtaining by deception’ and concluded that even if the point was a good one there could have been no miscarriage of justice. It accordingly applied the proviso.
(1977) 64 Cr App R 92
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.183244
The court has a common law power to defer part of its sentencing process.
[1976] 1 WLR 106
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Jones (Timothy) CACD 23-May-2003
The court had delayed part of the sentencing procedure to fix a compensation order. However if it did so, it should state clearly the reasons for the postponement, and what sentence was to be considered at the adjourned hearing. In this case a . .
Cited – Norman and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Jul-2006
The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for . .
Cited – Gordon, Regina v; Regina v Taylor etc CACD 8-Feb-2007
The court considered the interaction of sections 240 of the 2003 Act, and 67 of the 1967 Act as applied to time spent on remand.
Held: The court laying down the sentence should address this issue, and declare whether all time or otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.183270
A statutory conspiracy had been misdescribed as a common law conspiracy; the particulars of the offence were properly set out but a reference to the relevant statute was omitted.
Held: On appeal the defect was in fact favourable to the defendant and made not the slightest possible difference. There had been no miscarriage of justice and the proviso was applied.
(1981) 72 Cr App R 111
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.183245
The prosecutor appealed against a refusal by the judge to make confiscation orders. The defendants had benefitted from their conduct but had dissipated it all, and were found by the Crown to have no assets. The judge found this to be an exceptional circumstance.
Held: The judge had erred, and should have made the order. The fact that there were presently no assets and that the defendants might suffer hardship as a result of an order did not justify an order being withheld. Parliament had not intended that hardship for the defendant should count as an exceptional circumstance.
Latham LJ, Forbes, Simon JJ
Times 08-Aug-2006
Criminal Law Act 1977, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 31
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.244207
The court had delayed part of the sentencing procedure to fix a compensation order. However if it did so, it should state clearly the reasons for the postponement, and what sentence was to be considered at the adjourned hearing. In this case a compensation order had not been mentioned. The court should make allowance for the Act.
Times 04-Jun-2003
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 130(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Dorrian CACD 2001
The court retains a common law power to defer part of its sentencing procedure. . .
Cited – Regina v Tuegel CACD 2000
The court retains a common law power to adjourn part of its sentencing procedure. Courts should exercise considerable restraint in their interventions. . .
Cited – Regina v Annesley CACD 1976
The court has a common law power to defer part of its sentencing process. . .
Cited – Regina v Ingle CACD 1974
The court has a power at common law to defer part of its sentencing process. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.183268
It was wrong for a judge who was not prepared to stop the case himself to cast that responsibility on to the jury.
Roskill LJ
(1973) 58 Cr App R 348
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v SH CACD 3-Aug-2010
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.421335
Appeal on refusal of costs after private prosecutor’s successful lifting of stay.
Dais LJ, Phillips J, Dickinson QC
[2017] EWCA Crim 1604
England and Wales
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597485
The first defendant’s bankers had heard of his conviction for fraud in Israel and had notified his and associated bank accounts to SOCA. He now appealed against ex parte world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure orders (DO) made againt him. The PFO appellants sought an order varying the property freezing order so as, inter alia, to exclude from its ambit property that was located outside England and Wales and to limit disclosure obligations under the DO to assets located within England and Wales.
Held: Although there is a presumption against giving the relevant provisions of POCA extraterritorial effect, with the exception of section 286, which applied only to an order made in Scotland, the language of the relevant provisions so clearly applied to property outside the jurisdiction that it displaced this presumption.
Mitting J
[2010] EWHC 1711 (Admin), [2011] 1 Costs LR 22, [2010] 1 WLR 2761
England and Wales
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and Others Admn 30-Jul-2009
The respondents sought to have set aside a world wide asset freezing and associated orders obtained by SOCA against them. They said that the Court had no jurisdiction over them, and that the Agency was guilty of wilful non-disclosure. They first . .
Appeal From – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.421880
The claimants challenged the legality of decisions taken by HMRC to apply for search and seizure warrants under the 1984 Act in connection with a criminal investigation of suspected evasion of VAT, income tax and National Insurance Contributions by NUFC in relation to payments made to and via football agents, and the decision to issue the warrants.
Held: The challenges failed.
Beatson LJ, Whipple J
[2017] EWHC 2402 (Admin)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
England and Wales
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597452
Renewed application for bail by the requested person. s.4(2B) of the Bail Act 1976 displaces the statutory presumption in favour of bail when a requested person has been convicted of an offence for which a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) has been issued.
[2019] EWHC 3651 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.651346
Lady Wise
[2017] ScotCS CSOH – 114
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 128
Scotland
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593567
ECLI:EU:C:2017:609, C-475/16, [2017] EUECJ C-475/16
European
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593572
The defendant sought judicial review of his caution for possession of cannabis, saying that it went again the national guidance against such decisions after the reclassification of cannabis as a Class C banned substance. He had been arrested for a more serious allegation which could not be proved.
Held: If the policy said that no prosecutions should be undertaken unless some aggravating feature was present, then the policy would be unlawful. The police could not suspend operation of an Act of Parliament. The policy expressly preserved the discretion of the officer in each case, and made no explicit provision against cautioning. The request for review failed. Moses LJ said: ‘It is unsurprising that the courts have been so reluctant to intervene in relation to decisions taken concerning prosecutions and particularly in relation to operational decisions of the police.’
Moses LJ
Times 07-Nov-2006, [2006] EWHC 2370 (Admin), [2006] Po LR 134, [2007] Crim LR 298, (2007) 171 JP 121
England and Wales
Cited – A, Regina (on the application of) v South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 9-May-2007
Six youths challenged decisions that they should be prosecuted for offences of criminal damage rather than be given warnings in accordance with the Final Warning Scheme. They said that they had not sought representation at the police station after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.245356
Similar fact evidence might be admitted to help identify the defendant.
[1915] 2 KB 702, 31 TLR 444, 113 LT 456
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Straffen CCA 20-Aug-1952
The defendant had been arrested for murders of young girls, but after being found unfit to plead, he was committed to Broadmoor. While he escaped another girl was murdered, and he was charged. The prosecutor sought to bring in evidence of admissions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.214194
The applicant had been convicted and imprisoned following a trial in which he had defended himself, and in which the judge had attacked his honesty before the jury, and his honesty was an issue in the charge. The conviction had been set aside, and he sought compensation the Secretary of State who had refused this on the grounds that the circumstances were not exceptional.
Held: The Secretary of State’s decision was irrational. The complaint went to behaviour of the judge, and was justified. The Secretary of State’s decision was outside the range of reasonable responses, and he should have granted the application.
Times 05-Dec-2000, Gazette 11-Jan-2001
England and Wales
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.88655
After a bitter and protracted trial, the defendants appealed against conviction, and defence counsel made complaints about the judge’s conduct, and the judge about their conduct. The convictions related to serious allegations of conspiracy to steal motor vehicles, and the defence had complained about the use of closed materials protecting the identity of experts working covertly within the motor industry tracing stolen materals and vehicles. No special counsel had been allowed to examine the evidence.
Held: The Appeals failed.
[2017] EWCA Crim 1210
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591702
[2017] EWCA Crim 1076
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591215
The Claimant challenged the Defendant’s decision at the conclusion of a Victim’s Right to Review procedure, not to charge the Interested Party with any criminal offences arising from allegations of historic child sexual abuse made against him by the Claimant.
Gross LJ, Sir Kenneth Parker
[2017] EWHC 1768 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591229
Appeal from amendment of sentence under slip rule.
Held: ‘the judge had the jurisdiction to re-sentence, exercised that power in the circumstances of this offence rationally, lawfully and fairly, did not result in him being unable to increase sentence by reason of any expectation that might have been generated by his remarks on the earlier occasion and reached a sentence that cannot be said to be unfair or manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. For these reasons this appeal is accordingly dismissed.’
Simon LJ, Blake, Soole JJ
[2017] 4 WLR 71, [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 5, [2017] Crim LR 569, [2017] EWCA Crim 226
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591202
This appeal concerns a trial judge’s assessment during the course of giving evidence that a witness should be treated as vulnerable, and the directions that he then made as to how cross-examination should continue.
Simon LJ, Stuart-Smith J, Rec Cardff
[2017] WLR(D) 351, [2017] 4 WLR 119, [2017] EWCA Crim 617
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591204
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 training allowed. No notice had been given to apply to the court which had used this to allow the special measures direction.
Held: The appeal failed. The Commencement Order had been passed. The Crown Court is one court, not a series of courts, and there was no express arrangement to limit the power to particular sittings. The judge had the power to make a special measures direction, notwithstanding the fact no notification of availability had been given under section 18(2) which was simply an administrative provision designed to help the court, but it in no way affected the power of the Crown Court to make a special measures direction under section 27 in any proceedings at any time after the provision was commenced by the Commencement Order.
Lord Justice Thomas
[2008] EWCA Crim 678, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep 10, [2008] 1 WLR 2044
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 18(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams HL 18-Sep-1996
A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.
The . .
Cited – Regina (Britton) v Croydon Crown Court 2000
The Crown Court is a single court. . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of S v Waltham Forest Youth Court, The Crown Prosecution Service, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Mar-2004
There was no inherent power to allow a defendant to give evidence by live link, on the ground that Parliament had sought since 1988 to provide exclusively for the circumstances in which live link might be used in a criminal trial. . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL 15-Dec-2000
A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Diane, Regina v CACD 9-Jul-2009
Whether the judge had been right to admit evidence given by telephone only from a witness in Belgium.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Parliament authorised in sections 30 and 31 that witnesses who are present in the United Kingdom could be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.266465
The court did not have power to admit video evidence other than in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Latham LJ VP, Openshaw, King JJ
[2007] EWCA Crim 2108, [2008] 1 Cr App R 6, [2008] 1 WLR 728
England and Wales
Cited – Diane, Regina v CACD 9-Jul-2009
Whether the judge had been right to admit evidence given by telephone only from a witness in Belgium.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Parliament authorised in sections 30 and 31 that witnesses who are present in the United Kingdom could be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.259781
There was no inherent power to allow a defendant to give evidence by live link, on the ground that Parliament had sought since 1988 to provide exclusively for the circumstances in which live link might be used in a criminal trial.
Lord Justice Laws Eady The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
[2004] 2 Cr App R 335, [2004] EWHC 715 (Admin), [2004] 2 Cr App R 21, (2004) 168 JP 293, (2004) 168 JPN 438
England and Wales
Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Diane, Regina v CACD 9-Jul-2009
Whether the judge had been right to admit evidence given by telephone only from a witness in Belgium.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Parliament authorised in sections 30 and 31 that witnesses who are present in the United Kingdom could be heard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.195036
King J
[2016] EWHC 3627 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589885
Judicial review of decision to publicise the name of a young person accused of a crime.
Sir Brian Leveson Q QBD, Blake, Lewis JJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 739
Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999 45, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
England and Wales
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588233
The defendant had defrauded women of in excess of pounds 500,000. He admitted dishonesty. The court ordered confiscation under the 1988 Act, with the benefit assessed as that figure, adjusted to pounds 600,000 to allow for the return he should have made. No assets were traced, and the police said that he had hidden it, since he did not appear to have lived extravagantly or spent large sums of money. The appellant said he had gambled it away, but gave no evidence of this. His evidence was found evasive but the benefit figure was reduced by pounds 150,000 as an acknowledgement that some of the money had probably been spent over the years. He appealed contending that the judge had been wrong to place the burden on the appellant to establish that his realisable assets were less than the amount of the benefit.
Held: Where an application for a confiscation order was being resisted, the onus of proving the ‘benefit’ obtained is first upon the prosecution. The burden then lay on the defendant to establish to the civil standard, that he had no realisable assets and how the proceeds of the criminal activity were no longer available. The Act requires two distinct tasks. To determine the benefit, and then determine the amount that might be realised. The amount may be quite unrelated to the identifiable proceeds of the offence, eg a lottery win, inheritance, or other lawfully acquired property. The task of the court at the second stage is to determine the amount ‘appearing to the court’ to be the amount that might be realised. But once the benefit has been proved, it is permissible and ought normally to be the approach of the court, to conclude that the benefit remains available until the defendant proves otherwise; subject to the issue of changes in the value of the money.
‘it is likely that an offender may take steps to make the proceeds of crime difficult to trace. Once it is proved that he has received the benefit, it is pragmatic, and entirely fair to the defendant, to place upon him the onus of showing (to the civil standard) that he no longer has the proceeds or that their extent or value has diminished’ and ‘We stress that the scheme of the Act requires the court to perform two distinct and discrete tasks. First, to determine the benefit. Secondly, to determine the amount that might be realised at the time the order is made, which may be very different. Further, the amount that might be realised may be quite unrelated to the identifiable proceeds of the offence, e.g. a lottery win, inheritance, or other lawfully acquired property. In the end, the task of the court at the second stage is to determine the amount ‘appearing to the court’ to be the amount that might be realised. But once the benefit has been proved, it is permissible and ought normally to be the approach of the court, to conclude that the benefit remains available until the defendant proves otherwise . .’
Judge LJ, Holman, Andrew Smith JJ
Times 10-Nov-2000, [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 445, [2000] EWCA Crim 3551, [2001] Crim LR 52, [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 129
England and Wales
Cited – Grayson and Barnham v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2008
Each applicant had been subject to confiscation in criminal proceedings relating to drugs offences. They complained that the legislation had reversed the burden of proof.
Held: ‘it was not incompatible with the notion of a fair hearing in . .
Cited – Mcintosh and Another v Regina CACD 22-Jun-2011
The appellants argued that the court had misdirected itself in law when concluding that neither appellant had satisfied him that the amount that might be realised at the time he made the confiscation orders was less than the agreed amount of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.431642
(Republic of Trinidad and Tobago)
Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2019] UKPC 7
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.633435
The defendants challenged the power of the local authority to maintain a private prosecution of them on counts of alleged fraud. It was purpotrting to act in effect as a profit making branch of the local authority offering such legal services to CPS.
Held: The Council had no such power, though the prosecution had now been taken over by the DPP: ‘It is in the public interest that major prosecutions such as this are handled by the single prosecuting agency established by statute to conduct them.’
Lord Thomas LCJ, Carr DBE, Gilbart JJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 534
Local Government Act 1972 222, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 29(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584245
Appeal by the Crown by way of case stated against a decision of Wakefield Magistrates’ Court dismiss the prosecution of the five Respondents for offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) on the basis that the proceedings were brought out of time.
Hiickinbottom LJ, Kerr J
[2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582155
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1567
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581985
Orders after suspected exaggerated claims for costs to be paid from central funds
Simon LJ, Hickinbottom J
[2016] EWCA Crim 2001, [2017] 1 Costs LR 77
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581986
The court was asked whether and, if so, in what circumstances the court may make orders for interim relief which cut across and in effect disapply the consent regime under the 2002 Act.
Simon, Hambles, Hickinbottom LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 253, [2017] WLR(D) 255
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581743
This case raises for consideration the question, amongst others, whether the common law duty of disclosure or candour attaching to an applicant for a domestic search warrant is applicable, in modified form, to an authority requesting assistance by way of a Letter of Request from a foreign authority, pursuant to the provisions of s.7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003.
[2017] EWHC 600 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 230
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 7
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581620
[2017] EWHC 714 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581630
Application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against sentences for shoplifting totalling eighteen months.
Held: The Crown Court had had no power to impose the sentence which it imposed, but more fundamentally that the indictment upon which the applicant was convicted and sentenced was a nullity.
Rafferty DBE LJ, Wyn Williams, Morris JJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 2239
England and Wales
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581607
[2010] ECHR 987
Human Rights
See Also – Hussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Mar-2006
The claimant had been acquitted in a criminal trial. He applied for a defendant’s costs order. He had faced a charge of interfering with witnesses, and in the case against him, a witness did not appear. The court refused the costs, commenting that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581443
On January 28th, 1915, applicant was convicted before Avory J., at Gloucester Assizes, of obtaining goods and credit by false pretences, and of conspiring to defraud, and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On January 31st he gave notice of appeal, but on February 5th abandoned his appeal by a formal notice to that effect addressed to the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Roland Oliver made an ex parte application to the Court on his behalf. The applicant asks for leave to withdraw his notice of abandonment, and that his appeal should be proceeded with. When he delivered his notice of abandonment he was under the impression that the fact that his friends were unable to assist him financially rendered it impossible for him to continue with his appeal as he desired. He may not have known that his appeal could be supported out of public funds. It is submitted that in these circumstances the Court will allow the notice of abandonment to be withdrawn, on the ground that there was a mistake of fact. This was allowed in Barker, 3 Cr. App. R. 283 (1910).
The Lord Chief Justice:
The effect of the notice given by the applicant of his desire to abandon his appeal is, by Rule 23 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, 1908 , that his appeal must be deemed to have been dismissed by this Court. There is no doubt that this Court has power either to allow the notice of abandonment [15] to be withdrawn or to re-open an appeal which has been dismissed. But that power will only be exercised where there are special circumstances which in the view of the Court justify a departure from the ordinary procedure. Here the applicant asks to be allowed to withdraw his notice of abandonment merely on the ground that he thought that his friends would not be able to give him financial assistance, and that in consequence he would not be able to proceed with his appeal, whereas he now finds that his friends can help him. In the opinion of the Court these facts do not constitute such circumstances as would justify the re-opening of the appeal. It must be borne in mind that precautions are taken to bring to the notice of every prisoner that he has a right to appeal against his conviction and sentence, and that he does not require money to enable him to do so. There can be no justification for an accused person abandoning his appeal unless he thinks that there is no ground upon which to appeal, and that it would be useless for him so to do. For these reasons this application must be refused.
Application dismissed
Lord Chief Justice, Ridley, Lawrence JJ
(1917) 12 Cr App Rep 14
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.603249
The defendant sought leave to appeal against a refusal of a crown court judge at a preparatory hearing to order disclosure.
Held: Because orders for disclosure would not form part of the material to be considered in a preparatory hearing as such, there was no right of appeal.
Maurice Kay LJ, Crane, Dobbs JJ
Times 01-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 1975
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 29, Criminal Justice Act 1987
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 9-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Regina v B and G; Re Interlocutory Application CACD 27-May-2004
Rose LJ considered the obligation on a court to accept a lawyer’s view as to whether the continued representation of a criminal client would cause professional embarassment: ‘We think it right, both in principle and pragmatically, that whether a . .
Cited – Regina v Crown Prosecution Service, Re Interlocutory Application CACD 7-Sep-2005
The defendants in a forthcoming trial had applied for disclosure of surveillance tapes (some 15,000 hours) made during the investigations anticipating an application for a finding of abuse of process. Some had been served, but the prosecutor now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.259180
Rose LJ considered the obligation on a court to accept a lawyer’s view as to whether the continued representation of a criminal client would cause professional embarassment: ‘We think it right, both in principle and pragmatically, that whether a solicitor or barrister can properly continue to act is a matter for him or her, not the court, although of course the court can properly make observations on the matter . . Absent exceptional circumstances, such as an obvious attempt by a defendant to abuse the system by repeated applications, we think it is unlikely that, if leading counsel tells a judge that he is embarrassed to continue acting, the judge will not permit a change of representation.’
The Vice President of Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Lord Justice Rose
Mr Justice Cresswell
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
[2004] EWCA Crim 1368, [2004] 1 WLR 2932
England and Wales
Cited – H, Regina v Re Interlocutory Application CACD 7-Jul-2006
The defendant sought leave to appeal against a refusal of a crown court judge at a preparatory hearing to order disclosure.
Held: Because orders for disclosure would not form part of the material to be considered in a preparatory hearing as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.263568
Hooper LJ discussed the issue of delay in a trial: ‘Prior to the start of the case it will often be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a defendant can have a fair trial because of the delay coupled with the destruction of documents and the unavailability of witnesses. Issues which might seem very important before the trial may become unimportant or of less importance as a result of developments during the trial, including the evidence of the complaint and other witnesses including the defendant should he choose to give evidence.’
Hooper LJ
(2005) EWCA Crim 29
England and Wales
Cited – RCPO v C CACD 5-Feb-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process. It was alleged that the defendant solicitor had permitted a relation of his partner to launder the proceeds of a tax fraud. The principal defendant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.396627
The court considered its power on allowing an appeal after a plea of guilty to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offence.
Held: Hughes LJ said that section 3A of the 1968 Act imposed a two stage test. The court considering substitution had to ask: (1) could the jury have convicted on the trial indictment of the substitute offence; and if it could, then (2) does the plea of guilty (to the offence to which the original plea was made), indicate an admission of facts proving the defendant guilty of the substitute offence?
Hughes LJ, Field J, Sir Richard Curtis
[2006] EWCA Crim 1974, [2007] Crim LR 79, [2007] 1 Cr App R 10
England and Wales
Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Cited – Suchedina v Regina; similar CACD 27-Oct-2006
Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: . .
Applied – Regina v Lee CACD 24-Jun-2010
The defendant pharmacist faced a charge of supplying a medicinal product with a misleading label, an offence under section 85 of the 1968 Act. Working as a locum in a busy supermarket pharmacy she had signed off a mislabelled prescription. The . .
Cited – White v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.270253
The parties appealed against a decision by the judge under the 1996 Act at a preliminary hearing to accept only written submissions and to limit the length of those submissions for and against the admission of material at trial under the 1984 Act.
Held: The judge’s powers of case management included such a power. Any necessary public element could be achieved if required by copies being served at the time of a hearing.
Sir Igor Judge P, Mitting, Fulford JJ
Times 12-May-2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 835
Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 29, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (2005 No 384)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.242642
The section provided that the Court could order a legal practitioner to pay ‘wasted costs’, which were defined as costs incurred by a party ‘as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative’. The barrister appealed against the order made.
Held: The court adopted the practice of not naming barristers subject to applications for wasted costs orders.
The Court recommended a three-stage test or approach when contemplating an order under s.19A. Macpherson J said: ‘A three stage test or approach is recommended when a wasted costs order is contemplated.
(i) Has there been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission?
(ii) As a result have any costs been incurred by a party?
(iii) If the answers to (i) and (ii) are ‘Yes,’ should the court exercise its discretion to disallow or order the representative to meet the whole or any part of the relevant costs, and if so what specific sum is involved?’
. . And ‘There is a clear need for any judge or court intending to exercise the wasted costs jurisdiction to formulate carefully and concisely the complaint and ground upon which such an order may be sought. These measures are draconian, and, as in contempt proceedings, the grounds must be clear and particular.’
Macpherson J
[1993] QB 293, [1992] 3 All ER 429, [1992] 3 WLR 662, (1992) 95 Cr App R 288
rosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Cited – Ridehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Cited – Reeves and Co, Solicitors, Regina v CACD 24-Mar-2011
The solicitors appealed against a wasted costs order. On the morning of the trial, they had produced further evidence leading to the collapse of the trial.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The solicitors had not been given notice of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.200455
ThepProsecution relied entirely upon the evidence of an accomplice, Solomon. Lester and Harvey were convicted. A third man was acquitted. The Court referred to how the trial judge left the case to the jury and quoted from the summing up: ‘Members of the jury, in considering the evidence and in coming to your decision, as a matter of common sense and justice you will no doubt see why you have to deal with each of these defendants separately. Your duty is to consider the case of each defendant separately. The evidence is not the same in the case of all of them and they are entitled to separate consideration by you. It may be, and I will have a lot to say about Solomon, that if you are not satisfied about Solomon in the case of one of these defendants that you will think it not right to be satisfied about him in respect of any one of the others. It may be unreal to think that you could believe him in respect of one defendant and not in respect of the others, but that is something that you and you alone can decide, having heard the evidence and applying my direction in law to it.’ The Court concluded: ‘We take the view that the learned judge had formed in his own mind the proposition that it really was the case you either convict all on Solomon’s evidence or you convict none. The judge having formed that view the submissions which learned counsel have made on behalf of the Appellants, and to which we have referred, are of the highest importance. It seems to us, when you come to consider Solomon, that you cannot as it were compartmentalise his evidence. The jury were saying ‘We cannot believe him for sure whether he is telling the truth about Willis’, and in saying that it must necessarily follow that they could not, in our view, accept for certainty that he was telling the truth in the case of the others. The fact that all the evidence about Willis’s alibi caused them to pause and have doubt about Willis and therefore acquit him, cannot make Solomon’s evidence in other respects acceptable so that they could convict the two appellants. In those circumstances we have reached the view that these verdicts are not safe and are not satisfactory. And the convictions must be quashed.’
Lord Lane, Chief Justice
Unreported, 13 December 1982
England and Wales
Cited – Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina CACD 9-Feb-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.185681
The prosecution had failed to disclose certain letters and photographs exchanged by the Defendant and the father of her child and used them in cross-examination to rebut her defence that she had been carrying drugs under duress exerted by him. The letters revealed a more affectionate relationship than the Defendant had admitted in evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘The basic principle that the prosecution must include all probative material on which it intends to rely, and must tender it as part of the prosecution case, does not form part of our law because the law wishes to help liars to tell more convincing lies, but because an accused needs to know in advance the case which will be made against him if he is to have a proper opportunity of giving his answer to that case to the best of his ability. The accused is also entitled, when he decides whether or not to go into the box to give evidence, to know what the case is he has to meet. The intelligence and powers of memory and of literacy of accused people vary greatly. Some people may exaggerate and embroider and lie even when their basic case is true.
It is better in the interests of justice that an accused is not induced, by thinking that he is safe if he does so, to exaggerate, or to embroider, or to lie . . so to do might be to ambush the accused . . Further, we would add, where the evidence is of great force, the proper disclosing of it may cause the accused to plead guilty to the advantage both of the administration of justice and of the accused.’ and ‘Where the material in question, on the facts known to the prosecution, could only be damaging to the defence and of assistance to the prosecution, the obligation to disclose, if any, must, we think, be sought primarily in the principles governing the obligation of the prosecution to include within its case all probative material upon which it intends to rely, having regard to the facts and circumstances known to the prosecution when the case is presented.’
Ralph Gibson LJ
(1990) 91 Cr App R 226
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v McCartney, Hamlett, Beddow and Hulme CACD 16-May-2003
The defendants appealed convictions and sentences for a long series of armed robberies. The evidence centred on the admissions of a participant, whose statement, the defendants alleged was self serving and unreliable, and in one case served a . .
Cited – Pershad, Regina v CACD 10-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the prosection had been allowed to produce and use at trial evidence not previously disclosed. As a practicing barrister he had not paid his VAT for 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.185660
The police had applied to a judge for an order under the 1984 Act requiring the applicant, a suspect in a fraud investigation, to produce documents falling within the definition of ‘special procedure documents’ under the Act. The applicants sought leave to appeal from a refusal of an order for judicial review of the decision not to disclose to them ‘special procedure material’.
Held: The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order of the Crown Court for the production of certain documents under section 9 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in criminal proceedings.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘One thing is quite clear. The nature of an order made or refused in judicial review proceedings must depend not upon that order but upon the order that is sought to be reviewed. What was being reviewed in this case was an order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’
In this case: ‘It is to my mind clear beyond argument that the order which was made in this case was made in a criminal context, but it is right to note . . that there are no proceedings in existence . .I have not been able to find out whether this Act could or would be used where criminal proceedings have begun, but it does not really matter . . It is sufficient to note that no criminal proceedings have been begun here and, indeed, in most cases there is no doubt that orders would be sought under this Act where a decision had not yet been reached whether or not to prosecute. It is essentially a statutory provision in aid of a criminal investigation designed, if the evidence will stand it, to lead to a criminal prosecution. But unless it is to be said that an order under the Act is either never or very rarely one which is by its nature a criminal cause or matter merely because of the stage at which the order is made, then the fact that there are no criminal proceedings does not, in my judgment, matter. That fact stems purely from the nature of the Act and the statutory provisions and does not affect the criminal characters of the proceedings.’
Sir John Donaldson MR, Stephen Brown and Croom-Johnson LJJ
[1987] 3 All ER 684, [1987] 3 WLR 529, [1987] QB 963
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 14
England and Wales
No Longer Binding – Regina v Southampton Justices ex parte Green CA 1976
The court considered whether as the Court of Appeal, it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order estreating a recognisance.
Held: It did. Lord Denning MR said that ‘the matter is criminal’ if . .
Cited – Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions CA 29-Aug-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant’s costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit.
Held: . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182944
The court considered conflicting interpretations of Acts: It would be wrong for the court to introduce into a matter already in all conscience complicated enough, and made complicated by imperfections of drafting, refinements and narrow distinctions between cases which might fall under one section rather than another of the same legislation.
Lord Evershed MR
[1957] 2 QB 535
England and Wales
Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182385
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each co-defendant with care because each has or may have an interest of his own to serve’ would in most cases suffice to ensure that the jury regarded the evidence in question with proper and adequate caution.
Watkins LJ
(1983) 77 Cr App R 94
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Prater CCA 1960
Where one defendant gave evidence incriminating his co-defendant, just as in cases where an accomplice gave evidence for the prosecution, a full corroboration warning was desirable. . .
Approved – Regina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
Cited – Regina v Jones; Regina v Jenkins CACD 5-Jun-2003
Where each of more than one defendants asserted that he was not responsible for the crime, the jury should be directed (in addition) that they should consider the case of each defendant separately, the case should be considered as a whole, including . .
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Cited – Regina v Burley, Molnar, Stanton CACD 22-Mar-2001
The defendants appealed against their conviction for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. They denied knowledge that the goods (cars) were stolen.
Held: The judge had failed to direct the jury not to discuss the case outside court. He had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183674
Defendant’s application under Order 18 Rule 19 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court that some of the particulars in the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
[2010] NIQB 81
Northern Ireland
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.424812
The defendants appealed against an order allowing their trial to proceed without a jury. There had been earlier trials lost where the jury had suffered interference.
Held: The trials could go ahead on this basis. The right to a fair trial would not be prejudiced by a trial without a jury, where there was a demonstrable danger of jury tampering and possible protective measures would not be adequate to promise protection. The right to jury trial was important but not a fundamental right. The Act was clear and provide the statutory requirements were met, a trial without a jury was proper.
The court gave guidance to judges on how to apply the 2003 Act where jury tampering had been established. In general, ‘save in unusual circumstances, the judge faced with this problem should order not only the discharge of the jury but that he should continue the trial’. The court rejected an argument from the defence that the power to continue alone should not be exercised where closed evidence had been relied on: ‘The immediate attraction of the argument is plain. If correct however it would produce a remarkable outcome. It would mean that the court’s ability to discharge the jury because of jury tampering and order trial by judge alone could never be exercised if the evidence of the real and present danger were so sensitive that it could not be disclosed to the defendant. In short, the process could not apply where the actual potential interference with the jury was of the most serious or sophisticated kind, and where, for example, disclosure of the evidence might imperil life or health . . in such cases, faced with an order for disclosure, the Crown would be left with no alternative but to discontinue the prosecution. If so the objective of the jury tampering would have succeeded . . we agree that the evidence should be disclosed to the fullest extent possible, but it would be contrary to the legislative purpose to make an order for disclosure which would, in effect, bring the prosecution to an end, and enable those who had been involved injury tampering to derail the trial . . ‘
Otherwise: Regina v Twomey and Others
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring and Mr Justice Mccombe
[2009] EWCA Crim 1035, [2009] 3 All ER 1002, [2009] 2 Cr App R 25, [2010] Crim LR 82, [2010] 1 WLR 630
Criminal Justice Act 2003 44 47(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v KS CACD 17-Nov-2009
The jury had been discharged by the judge after finding jury tampering, and he decided to continue alone. The jury had not known of the earlier convictions of others involved in the alleged conspiracy, but the judge did and he had made reference to . .
Cited – S v Northampton Crown Court and Another Admn 7-May-2010
S faced serious charges of defrauding Customs and Excise. After allegations of jury tampering came to light, a decision was made for trial by judge alone, and his bail was revoked. He now sought judicial review of the refusal of bail. He challenged . .
Cited – Hutchings, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 6-Jun-2019
The appellant, a former army officer challenged proceedings against him as to the death of a civilian shot in Northern Ireland in 1974. His trial had been certified for trial by judge alone, and without a jury under section 1 of the 2007 Act.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.347232
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process. It was alleged that the defendant solicitor had permitted a relation of his partner to launder the proceeds of a tax fraud. The principal defendant had been substantially acquitted of the offences alleged to be a fraud. The defendant had been first arrested in 2004. His trial was later stayed in 2009 for delay.
Held: Pitchford LJ said: ‘There is . . no hard and fast rule as to the assessment of the relevant period for the purposes of Article 6 . . the assessment of the relevant period should be made in such a way as to give effect to article 6.1 if to do otherwise would deprive the accused of its effect.’
Much of the evidence in this case would depend upon the memory of witnesses, and the delay was therefore damaging to the defendant’s ability to present his case. The judge’s analysis was correct, and the appeal failed.
Pitchford LJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 97
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Burns v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) PC 15-Dec-2008
The accused was arrested in February 2003, but then only brought to court in December 2004. He said that he had not had a fair trial within a reasonable time. The parties disputed when the time began to run from, from the date of arrest or his first . .
Cited – Regina v B CACD 2008
Sir Igor Judge said: ‘No trial Judge should exercise his discretion in a way in which he personally believes may be unreasonable. That is not to say that he will necessarily find every such decision easy. But the mere fact that the Judge could . .
Cited – Regina v Burke CACD 2005
Hooper LJ discussed the issue of delay in a trial: ‘Prior to the start of the case it will often be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a defendant can have a fair trial because of the delay coupled with the destruction of documents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.396607
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept because of other convictions. He was arrested for the rape after a DNA match. It was argued that under the 1984 Act, the sample could not be used in evidence against him. The House considered whether the section was mandatory or directory.
Held: The direction to destroy such a sample was mandatory, and the sample should not have been used for the investigation of an offence. However, ‘paragraph (b), in contrast with paragraph (a), does not go on to provide that, in the event of such unlawful use, the results of the investigation shall not be admissible in evidence against the person who was entitled to the destruction of the sample. Nor does it provide that an unlawful investigation shall be null and void or deemed never to have occurred ‘ Any question as to the fairness of the admissibility of the evidence could still be addressed by the court under section 78.
Lord Steyn said this about the various interests which are served by a criminal trial: ‘The purpose of the criminal law is to permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. And it is in the interests of everyone that serious crime should be effectively investigated and prosecuted. There must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case this requires the court to consider a triangulation of interests. It involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family, and the public.’
Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
[2000] UKHL 71, [2001] 2 AC 91, [2001] 1 All ER 577, [2001] Crim LR 394, [2001] HRLR 16, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 1 Cr App R 34, [2000] Po LR 386
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(3B), Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Cited – Kuruma v The Queen PC 8-Dec-1954
(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord . .
Appeal From – Regina v B (Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1999); Regina v Weir CACD 26-May-2000
Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Jeyeanthan; Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 21-May-1999
The applicant had failed to comply with the Rules in not using the form prescribed for appliying for leave to appeal against a special adjudicator’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The application, by letter, included all the relevant . .
Cited – The Queen v Ireland 1971
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ considered the circumstance where, in a criminal trial, a judge was asked to exclude evidence for unfairness: ‘Whenever such unlawfulness or unfairness appears, the judge has a discretion to reject the evidence. . .
Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
Identifying ‘maandatory’ and ‘regulatory’
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Regina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Cited – Schenk v Switzerland ECHR 12-Jul-1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
Cited – Fox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .
See Also – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Cited – Hutchings, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 6-Jun-2019
The appellant, a former army officer challenged proceedings against him as to the death of a civilian shot in Northern Ireland in 1974. His trial had been certified for trial by judge alone, and without a jury under section 1 of the 2007 Act.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.374690
Lists crown court centres outside London which are to have jurisdiction to try complex fraud cases.
Times 13-Nov-1998
Criminal Justice Act 1987 5(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.84870
The trial judge had said to the jury that in cases of purported recognition by the witness of the accused as somebody known to him, an identification would, generally speaking, serve no useful purpose.
Held: He was in error and that the conviction was unsafe. Although the holding of an identification parade in a recognition case put the matter no further from the prosecution point of view, it could be material where the recognition was disputed, since ‘it ignores the possibility of a change of mind and/or a failure to identify the appellant at the identification parade, of which possibility the appellant was, in the end, deprived.’
Potter LJ
[2003] EWCA Crim 174
England and Wales
Cited – Ebanks (Jurt) v The Queen PC 16-Feb-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that identification evidence had been wrongly admitted and also if that appeal failed against the sentence of death. Though the witness knew the defendant, an identification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.238746
The defendants faced substantial trials involving drugs offences. At a preparatory hearing the court made decisions about abuse of process and as to what evidence might be admitted. The prosecutor said there was no right of appeal.
Held: (publication having been held back) Since the issues would have been heard in the absence of the jury during a trial, it was possible for them to be heard at a preparatory hearing, and also therefore an interlocutory right of appeal lay. Parliament had clearly intended such rulings to be capable of bing subject of an interlocutory appeal.
Henry LJ, Jack J, Sir Harry Ognall
Times 13-Feb-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1575, [2001] EWCA Crim 1359
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 829 35, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Not followed – In re Gunawardena, Harbutt and Banks CACD 1990
The defendant applied to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.
Held: The application for leave to appeal was rejected. The application to stay was not within the ambit of the preparatory hearing and therefore . .
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 5-Feb-1991
The court considered whether to quash a count of theft: ‘The fact that a possible incidental effect of the purposes of the application does find itself within those sub-provisions (a) to (d) is not one of the purposes of those provisions. It is the . .
Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 5-Feb-1991
The court considered whether to quash a count of theft: ‘The fact that a possible incidental effect of the purposes of the application does find itself within those sub-provisions (a) to (d) is not one of the purposes of those provisions. It is the . .
Cited – Regina v Jennings, Regina v Johnson, Regina v Mullins CACD 6-Sep-1993
No appeal lies against a Crown Court decision not to sever an indictment at a preparatory hearing. As an interlocutory order no appeal lay. . .
Cited – Regina v Moore and others CACD 9-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Regina v Moore and others CACD 9-Feb-1995
. .
Cited – Regina v Hedworth CACD 20-Sep-1996
The court allowed amendment of the indictment to reflect the law as demonstrated in Preddy, and at a preparatory hearing application was made to quash the amended indictment on the basis that the charges were not supported by evidence in the . .
Cited – Regina v R CACD 2-Feb-2001
The defendant was tried on several sexual offences, amongst which was included a rape of a girl under 16, committed abroad before the Act came into effect. He appealed.
Held: The convictions were set aside. The rape was non-justiciable, since . .
Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.193470
One of the difficulties associated with granting of bail in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, is the trauma caused to the appellant being returned to prison if his appeal fails. Roskill LJ said: ‘This Court desires to say as plainly as possible that where (exceptionally) intending appellants or applicants are released on bail and delay follows in the hearing of the appeal, that delay cannot and must not be relied upon, whenever the appeal or application fails, as a reason for their not being sent back to prison to serve their sentence. That is usually made plain when bail is granted, and it must be clearly understood that that is so.’
The judge has a duty to restrain cross-examination which is improper.
Roskill LJ
(1974) 60 Cr App R 200
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Wakely 7-Jun-1990
(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.470725
After the trial, papers were discovered in the jury retiring room showing that members of the jury had downloaded from the Internet material relating to the charges before them.
Held: The appeals failed. ‘the taking of this material into the jury room was a clear contravention of the important principle to which we have referred. It raises immediately the question of whether the convictions are safe or not, but upon close examination we are satisfied that these are convictions which are safe.’ There was no way in which the materials could in practice have adversely affected the defendants.
Hugfhes LJ, Rafferty J, Sir Charles Mantell
[2007] EWCA Crim 35
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.278878
The section 51(7) notice stated that the person had been sent for trial to the Crown Court ‘on the following indictable only offence: burglary, aggravated.’ Apart from the misspelling, the point was taken on appeal that the notice did not make clear the nature of the indictable-only offence; the appellant had not been charged with the distinct offence of aggravated burglary; the notice had not followed the wording of the relevant schedule to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which had specified the circumstances in which a burglary would indeed be an indictable-only offence (as the case in point undoubtedly was).
Held: The court recognised a real distinction between the sending of a defendant to the Crown Court and the subsequent notice, an administrative act; completion of the notice could not retrospectively invalidate the sending. Laws LJ: ‘ We would say only that, given the plain unqualified obligation on magistrates’ courts imposed by section 51(1) and the fact that section 51(7) is on any view adjectival to that obligation, we consider that it would be difficult to argue that the very existence of the section 51(1) duty in any case depends on the fulfillment of the section 51(7) duty. That is not to say that a failure to fulfill section 51(7) might not give rise to due process arguments on behalf of a defendant if prejudice or unfairness were occasioned, but nothing of that kind is in reality in play here . . ‘
Laws LJ
[2003] EWCA Crim 2062
England and Wales
Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.238431
It is the duty of the trial judge to control vexatious, unfair, misleading or irrelevant cross-examination.
(1979) 69 Cr App R 309
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Wakely 7-Jun-1990
(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.470726
The prosecutor had charged the defendant first with drink driving so as to take advantage of the provision placing upon the defendant the burden of proving that he had taken drink after the traffic accident and before testing. It iintended then to present a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in the Crown Court using that admission.
Held: This was an abuse. The almost invariable rule is that where a person is tried on a lesser offence he is not to be tried again on the same facts for a more serious offence. A contrary course of action would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Neill LJ referred to the ‘almost invariable rule that where a person is tried on a lesser offence he is not to be tried again on the same facts for a more serious offence’.
Garland J said that the case of Connelly is authority for the following: ‘(1) Pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict must relate to a crime which is the same, or in the effect the same, as that originally charged. (2) There is a wider principle that a second trial involving the same or similar facts may in the discretion of the court be stayed if to proceed would be oppressive or prejudicial and therefore an abuse of the process of the court.’
Neil LJ, Garland J
[1990] RTR 228
England and Wales
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited – Regina v Beedie CACD 11-Mar-1997
Stay for Extended Autrefois Convict
The plea of autrefois convict applies only if the legal substance of the charges is same but the judge has a discretion. The plea is not limited to Connelly v DPP definitions, but is still narrow.
A 19-year-old girl died of carbon monoxide . .
Approved – Phipps, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The appellant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. After complaints by the injured victim’s family he was further prosecuted for dangerous driving. He now appealed his conviction, having pleaded guilty when the judge failed to find an . .
Distinguished – Regina v Hartnett CACD 2003
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to an excess alcohol offence. He was then committed to the Crown Court for trial on an associated charge of dangerous driving on the same occasion. He pleaded guilty to that also. He . .
Explained – LSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.180641
The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of a prosecutor’s decision to lay a complaint before the magistrates alleging offences associated with an allegation of conspiracy to rob. He said that the decision fell foul of the requirement under the 1981 order that he be resident within the relevant district.
Girvan LJ
[2014] NIQB 2
Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 16
Northern Ireland
Cited – Regina (Caherty) v Belfast Justices 1978
Section 7 of the 1945 Act provides that a person charged in Northern Ireland with the commission of indictable offence may be proceeded against in any county or place in which (a) he is apprehended; (b) he is in custody in relation to the offence; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.520923
Referring to the admissibility of answers to questions put before an arrest, ‘it is quite impossible to say that the fact that a question of this kind has been asked invalidates the trial’.
Channell, J
(1909) 1 KBD 692
England and Wales
Doubted – Regina v Gavin 1888
The court excluded a statement made to a constable, who questioned his prisoner in a way that amounted to cross-examination. A constable has no right to ask questions without expressly saying that the answers cannot be relevant evidence. . .
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.184198
Judicial review of private prosecution after defendant cautioned.
[2016] EWHC 3536 (Admin), [2017] 4 WLR 43
England and Wales
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579647
The defendant had pleaded guilty by post, but on being called to court to face a possible disqualification from driving he was refused the chance to re-open his plea. The action had been begun under the written charge procedure introduced by the 2003 Act. The notification he had been given said that the conviction dated from the first hearing.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The adjourned hearing was a resumption of the hearing at which the conviction had already been entered, and the defendant had no automatic right to re-open his plea. Nevertheless the court to which the case was remitted should hear a request to be allowed to re-open the plea on established principles.
Hooper LJ, Rafferty J
[2010] EWHC 1848 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 473
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 12(9), Criminal Justice Act 2003 29(1), Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 21) Order 2008 (SI 2008/1424), Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 37.8
England and Wales
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.420996
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He said in terms that the charge should not have been brought to the Crown Court. The defendant was said to have abused and threatened a Job Centre worker with racial overtones. The judge had said that if the words were used, the jury could not safely conclude they went beyond dislike to dislike on racial grounds.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. The judge had fallen into the same error as had the justices in M. He had confused whether the words demonstrated racial intent when the Act required that the choice of words be racially motivated. Furthermore, it was difficult to see how it can be suggested that repeated angry references to a Nigerian as a ‘monkey’ or ‘black monkey’ do not generate a prima facie case of an outward manifestation of racial hostility.
The judge was criticised for his approach. Though it was accepted that the difficulties arose from extraordinary pressure being placed on Crown Courts, he had overstepped the mark.
Leveson LJ, Holroyde, Spencer JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1931, [2011] 1 Cr App R 14
Public Order Act 1986 4(1), Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Criminal Justice Act 2003 58
England and Wales
Cited – RG and LT v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 28-Jan-2004
The court contrasted allegations under sections 28(1)(a) and 28(1)(b): ‘paragraph (a) form is not concerned so much with the offender’s state of mind but with what he did or said so as to demonstrate racial hostility towards the victim. In contrast, . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v M (A Minor) Admn 25-May-2004
There was an argument over payment for food with the Turkish chef of a takeaway kebab shop during the course of which the defendant used the words ‘bloody foreigners’ and pushed the shop window causing it to crack. The justices doubted whether the . .
Cited – Rogers, Regina v HL 28-Feb-2007
The House was asked whether the use of the phrases ‘bloody foreigners’ and ‘get back to your own country’ counted to make a disturbance created by the defendant a racially aggravated crime.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond) ‘The mischiefs . .
Cited – Regina v Falconer-Atlee CACD 1973
It was wrong for a judge who was not prepared to stop the case himself to cast that responsibility on to the jury. . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v C, M and H CACD 11-Dec-2009
The CPS sought leave to appeal against a terminating ruling. It had failed to produce and serve evidence on the defendant even after an adjournment for the purpose. The judge directed an acquittal and refused an adjournment to allow the CPS to . .
Cited – Collins and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Apr-2007
The court (per Gage LJ) considered it strongly arguable that the practice of allowing to the jury the right to acquit an accused at any time after the close of the prosecution case, could not survive Article 6. Gage LJ identified the dangers . .
Cited – Regina v Middlesex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1952
The court considered a trial on indictment where there was jurisdiction to try the offence charged. After pleas had been taken and counsel for the Crown had opened the prosecution case to the jury, the chairman intervened and directed the jury to . .
Cited – Regina v Kemp CACD 25-Apr-1994
A judge should do no more than intimate that the jury has right to stop a trial. . .
Cited – FB v Regina CACD 27-Jul-2010
The court reversed three decisions where a particular judge had said that the CPS should not have begun prosecutions, saying ‘We recognise these [ever increasing financial] pressures only too well and recognise also the need for every court to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421334
ECJ (French Text) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Grounds for optional non-execution and guarantees provided by the issuing Member State – Possibility for the Member State [Or 1] implementation, making the surrender of a person residing in its territory on condition that this person, after being heard in the Member State issuing the arrest warrant is returned to the Member State execution in order to serve the sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty that could be passed against him – any impact on the decision taken by the judicial authorities of the executing Member State, a risk achieving the fundamental rights of the individual and, in particular, to respect for his private and family life
C-306/09, [2010] EUECJ C-306/09
European
See Also – IB v Cabinet (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 21-Oct-2010
ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4 – Grounds for optional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.420487