Category: Criminal Practice

Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1): Admn 15 Mar 2018

A claim that the DPP erred in her decision not to prosecute for alleged involvement in the unlawful rendition of the Claimants to Libya.

Judges:

Irwin LJ, Green J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 513 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 170

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD 21-Jul-2017
The claimant sought a declaration that the acts of the defendants had contributed to his unlawful rendition into US custody during the Iraq War, and that such actions were criminal. The Defendants applied for a declaration that these are proceedings . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-Dec-2017
The claimants alleged that the defendants had been involved in their unlawful rendition in 2004 from Thailand to Libya, in particular now challenging by judicial review the decision not to prosecute certain senior British Officers. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Belhaj and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2) Admn 15-Mar-2018
Second judgment on the scope of privilege to which we have both contributed – inadvertent disclosure . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 3-May-2018
Incorrect disclosure of non-redacted material in closed hearing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.608920

Regina v Sampson: CACD 24 Oct 2006

The defendant appealed the minimum sentence to be served of twelve years fixed in his case for the offence of murder. The defendant had first had his minimum term fixed by the Home Secretary, but after the requirement that minima should be set by courts the case was referred back to the trial Judge, now a High Court judge. The defendant complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new decision by the judge was not akin to the exercise of an appellate function, and the original judge was in the best place to make the decision. There was no appearance of bias, even if the judge was invited to depart from his earlier recommendation. On the facts of the case the minimum term wa reduced to ten years.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Pitchford and Mr Justice Calvert-Smith

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.247630

Regina v Wallwork: CCA 1958

The defendant was charged with the incest of his 5 year old daughter. She was called into the witness box, but was unable to give evidence. Her grandmother was called and gave evidence of the complaint made to her by the girl.
Held: The terms of the complaint ought not to have been admitted. There might in these circumstances have been no objection to the fact of the making of the complaint, as opposed to its terms, being admissible, but: ‘ There would have been no objection to the grandmother saying: ‘The little girl made a complaint to me’ and she could have been asked: ‘In consequence of that complaint what did you do?’ – and the answer would have been ‘I took her to the doctor and later to the police.’ One realises that, although the terms of the child’s statement must not be given, any jury could see at once that as a consequence of the complaint the grandmother took the child to the doctor and the police and that the terms of the complaint would mention her father. So there is really a certain artificiality about this rule that, although the statement which a girl or woman makes in these circumstances is not evidence of the facts complained of, at any rate it shows the jury at the time whether the name of the prisoner is mentioned or is not mentioned, for what happens is that the police go to a particular man and that is because the girl or woman has mentioned the name. Nevertheless, the evidence ought not to have been given and the learned judge ought to have told the jury to disregard it.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard LCJ

Citations:

(1958) 42 Cr App Rep 153

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Criticised – White v The Queen PC 10-Aug-1998
(Jamaica) Where a rape complainant gave evidence to support the prosecution that she had complained of the offence immediately afterwards, the court should be careful to direct the jury of the caution to be applied to the weight given to that . .
Cited – Spooner, Eric Charles v Regina; (Evidence: Sex abuse) CACD 25-May-2004
The defendant appealed his convictions for child sex abuse, involving assault, rape and buggery, saying that evidence of a recent complaint by a schoolgirl friend of the complainant which was not consistent with other evidence of the complainant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.198135

Jones, Regina (on The Application of) v Liverpool and Knowsley Magistrates’ Court: Admn 8 Dec 2016

Challenge to the decision of the respondents to proceed with the claimant’s trial without him having been granted legal aid, and in his absence.

Judges:

Treacy LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3520 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Aid, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573915

McLeod v The Queen: PC 30 Jan 2017

The appellant complained that in his trial for murder he had been unable to explain to his counsel that he wished to give sworn evidence. Counsel said that an opportunity had been given.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKPC 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573848

Vilkas: ECJ 25 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 23 – Time limit for surrender of the requested person – Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions – Resistance of the requested person to his surrender – Force majeure

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:39, [2017] EUECJ C-640/15, [2017] WLR(D) 41

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573743

Van Vemde, Openbaar Ministerie: ECJ 25 Jan 2017

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition of judgments – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Scope – Article 28 – Transitional provision – Concept of ‘issue of the final judgment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:37, [2017] EUECJ C-582/15, [2017] WLR(D) 40

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573742

Caballero v United Kingdom: ECHR 29 Feb 2000

Provisions were in place which said that a person charged with a very serious crime of violence having once been convicted previously of rape or murder he was to be refused bail automatically. Although the provision had later been altered, the provision did infringe his human rights, and the system also denied to him an opportunity to claim any compensation.
The period spent on remand had been deducted from the sentence, so that ordinarily no award would have been made. The court however noted that the applicant’s state of health was such that any release on bail prior to his trial could have been his last days of liberty. There was also undisputed evidence that the applicant would have had a good chance of being released on bail but for the breach of article 5(3). In these exceptional circumstances, an award of pounds 1000 was made ‘on an equitable basis’.
Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 14+5-3; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention procedure

Citations:

Times 29-Feb-2000, (2000) 30 EHRR 643, 32819/96, [2000] ECHR 52, [2000] ECHR 53

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Damages

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.78813

Lee v Leeds Crown Court: 2006

The appellant appealed against the refusal of the Leeds Magistrates to vary or discharge a restraining order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The recorder at the crown court ruled the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Because section 5(4) was silent as to any right of appeal it was accepted that the only possible avenue was the general right of appeal under section 108 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. This, however, did not avail the appellant because the decision sought to be appealed did not fall within the meaning of the word ‘sentence’ in that section. Bean J. pointed out that, absent any right of appeal under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, there would, in appropriate circumstances, be a remedy by judicial review or case stated on a point of law.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2550 Admin

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Magistrates Court Act 1980 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Langley v Preston Crown Court and others CACD 30-Oct-2008
The defendant sought to appeal against a ‘stand-alone’ anti-social behaviour order. The parties disputed whether an appeal lay. The act created an appeal against the making of an order but in this case it was a renewed order.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.277384

Goodyear, Karl, Regina v: CACD 19 Apr 2005

The defendant complained that he had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption on the basis of an indication from the judge that he would not receive a custodial sentence. Having pleaded guilty he had then been sentenced to a six months prison sentence suspended for two years.
Held: It was time to move on from the practice set out in Turner. Where a defendant requested an indication from a judge, and had been appropriately advised, a judge might give an indication. The court set out in detail the pre-conditions for giving an indication. Among them were that the facts should have been agreed, the defendant should initiate the request, and he should be told of the limitations of the request, including the fact that it may not be binding so as to prevent a reference of the sentence by the prosecution as unduly lenient. As to the effect of the indication: ‘Once an indication has been given, it is binding and remains binding on the judge who has given it, and it also binds any other judge who becomes responsible for the case. In principle, the judge who has given an indication should, where possible, deal with the case immediately, and if that is not possible, any subsequent hearings should be listed before him. This cannot always apply. We recognise that a new judge has his own sentencing responsibilities, but judicial comity as well as the expectation aroused in a defendant that he will not receive a sentence in excess of whatever the first judge indicated, requires that a later sentencing judge should not exceed the earlier indication. If, after a reasonable opportunity to consider his position in the light of the indication, the defendant does not plead guilty, the indication will cease to have effect.’ An indication should not be sought on a basis of hypothetical facts. The factual basis on which the plea is made should be agreed between the prosecution and the defence. In this case the judge should have abided by his indication.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Judge LJ, Treacey J, Wakerley J, Calvert-Smith J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 888, Times 21-Apr-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2532, [2005] 2 CAR 20 and, [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 6, [2005] Crim LR 659, [2005] 3 All ER 117

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 36

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) CACD 29-Apr-2004
The court considered references by the Attorney-General with regard to offences imposing a burden of proof upon the defendant. ‘An evidential burden will be discharged by a defendant by ensuring that there is some evidence before the court which . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Updated – Regina v Turner CACD 1970
The court considered an appeal where the defendant had entered a plea of guilty but had felt himself under undue pressure from the judge.
Held: The court urged caution in the practice of counsel seeing the judge in his chambers, though . .
Cited – Regina v Newton CACD 1982
Where there is a plea of guilty but there remains a conflict between the prosecution and defence as to the facts, the trial judge should approach the task of sentencing in one of three ways: a plea of not guilty can be entered to enable the jury to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005) CANI 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided. . .
Cited – Kulah, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed his sentence, saying that the judge had given an indication of sentence and that he had acted upon it to his detriment.
Held: The giving of indications had caused difficulty. In this case the judge had later found that . .
Cited – McKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Cited – Regina v Dougall CACD 13-May-2010
The defendant had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to corrupt in having provided inducements for the award of medical supplies contracts to Greece. He appealed against a sentence of twelve months imprisonment, saying that it should have been suspended . .
Cited – AB and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Dec-2021
‘It is said that the convictions are unsafe because the judge’s indication was so generous that the offer was irresistible to any defendant, whether guilty or not, or at least it operated to apply inappropriate pressure so that the pleas should not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.224331

In re Boyle, Judicial Review: QBNI 24 Oct 2007

The court considered an appeal by the claimant against refusal of compensation where he had served a term of imprisonment, but later had his conviction overturned. The conviction had relied upon challenged admissions which two police officers asserted were recorded contemporaneously in written notes of interviews. In relation to one of these interviews in which the admissions were recorded, ESDA testing revealed that there had been another version of the notes thereby undermining the evidence that they had been written at the time.
Held: ‘In the present case, the applicant contends that there has been a failure in the trial process. On Lord Bingham’s approach a ‘miscarriage of justice’ arises not only where it has been demonstrated that the applicant is innocent, which is not the present case, but also where the applicant should not have been convicted. However the new or newly discovered facts referred to above do not establish that the applicant ‘should not’ have been convicted. As Carswell LCJ stated in quashing the applicant’s conviction . . the new or newly discovered facts rendered the conviction unsafe because the Court of Appeal could not determine what view the trial Judge would have taken of the evidence had he known that it appeared that there were two versions of the interview notes for interview five. The trial Judge might have taken the view that it had fatally undermined the credibility of the interviewers and removed the evidence from the area of proof beyond reasonable doubt to some lesser area, or he might have said that he nevertheless accepted that the evidence was reliable in substance and that the interviews reflected what was said. All that can be said is that the trial Judge may or may not have convicted the applicant had he known what is now known. Accordingly as in Magee’s Application and in Clibery, the applicant does not satisfy Lord Bingham’s wider interpretation of ‘miscarriage of justice’ as an applicant in respect of whom it has been established that he ‘should not’ have been convicted.’

Judges:

Weatherup J

Citations:

[2007] NIQB 88

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

triticised – Siddall, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 16-Mar-2009
The claimant had been imprisoned then released after his conviction for sexual assaults. He appealed against rejection of his claim for compensation. The criterion for compensation was demonstrating that something had ‘gone seriously wrong in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice, Damages

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.261756

In Re Boyle’s Application for Judicial Review: CANI 28 Apr 2006

Appeal from a decision dismissing an application for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions whereby he refused to provide detailed reasons for his decision not to prosecute two police officers for perjury.

Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ and McLaughlin J
[2006] NICA 16
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Cited by:
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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.241410

The Knightland Foundation, Regina v: CACD 26 Jul 2018

The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including directions if a jury is empanelled and expedition; (b) it provides openness and clarity, in particular for the defendant; (c) emails can get misdirected; (d) although CPR 5.1 encourages electronic filing of applications and notices, CPR 4.11 provides electronic service received after 14.30 is deemed service the next day. adding:
‘ However, it does not follow from the fact that giving notice in open court is best practice that we have no jurisdiction. The question remains – does a prosecutor lose his or her right to apply for leave to appeal by failing to give notice in open court?’

Hallett DBE LJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 1860
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – PY, Regina v CACD 22-Jan-2019
Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work
The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Planning

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.624147

Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): FD 19 Feb 2003

A trial judge had refused an order that steps should not be taken so as to allow S to be identified in reporting the trial of his mother for the alleged murder of his brother by salt poisoning.
Held: The court dismissed the application for an injunction restraining the publication by newspapers of the identity of a defendant in a murder trial which had been intended to protect the privacy of her son who is not involved in the criminal proceedings. Section 39 was inapplicable because S was not a ‘child concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person by or against or in respect of whom the proceedings were taken, or as being a witness therein’. ‘First I recognise the primacy in a democratic society of the open reporting of public proceedings on grave criminal charges and the inevitable price that that involves in incursions on the privacy of individuals. Secondly, I recognise that Parliament has in a number of statutes qualified that right to report and, in the context of this case, most notably in section 39 of the 1933 Act; where a set of circumstances arise not covered by those provisions the court should in my judgment be slow to extend the incursion into the right of free speech by the use of the inherent jurisdiction. Thirdly, I have to recognise that not even the restrictions contended for here offer real hope to CS of proper isolation from the fallout of publicity at this trial; it is inevitable that those who know him will identify him and thus frustrate the purpose of the restriction. Lastly, I am simply not convinced that, when everything is drawn together and weighed, it can be said that grounds under article 10(2) of the ECHR have been made out in terms of the balance of the effective preservation of CS’s article 8 rights against the right to publish under article 10. I should add, although it is not strictly necessary to do so, that I think I would have come to the same conclusion even had I been persuaded that this was a case where CS’s welfare was indeed my paramount consideration under section 1(1) of the 1989 Act.’ The newspapers were not to be prevented in reports of the criminal trial from publishing the identity of the defendant or her deceased son or photographs of them.

Hedley J
[2003] EWHC 254 (Fam)
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 839
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
At first instance – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, criminal Practice, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.219020

Milev C-439/16: ECJ 27 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2016/343/EU – Articles 3 and 6 – Temporal application – Review by the courts of the remand in custody pending trial of an accused – National legislation prohibiting, during the trial stage of the proceedings, inquiry into whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed an offence – Incompatibility with Article 5(1)(c) and (4) of the European Convention on Human Rights – Discretion left by the national case-law to the national courts to decide whether or not to apply that convention

ECLI:EU:C:2016:818, [2016] EUECJ C-439/16
Bailii
Directive 2016/343/EU
European

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571253

Director of Public Prosecutions v Jobling: Admn 26 May 2016

The DPP appealed by case stated against rejection of a complaint that the defendant had damaged the car tyres of a neighbour. They had done so on the basis that the CCTV footage submitted in evidence was of such poor quality as not to afford a clear identification of the defendant. They had rejected the compkaint as forming no case to answer.
Held: The only tenable conclusion was that there was sufficient evidence so that a bench properly directed could on one view of the evidence safely convict.

Gross LJ, Nicol J
[2016] EWHC 2707 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570778

McPhee v The Queen: PC 24 Oct 2016

(Bahamas) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that a written confession should not have been admitted. It had been taken when he was a minor and had not been given a lawyer or an appropriate adult during interview.
Held: The question being raised, it was for the prosecution to establish that the confession was reliable. The presence of abishop when the statement was finally signed was not enough to displace

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
[2016] UKPC 29, [2016] WLR(D) 542
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570456

Soma Oil and Gas Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of The Serious Fraud Office: Admn 12 Oct 2016

The claimant was under investigation by the defendant, and having co-operated, they sought judicial review after the defendant made little progress over many months.
Held: The request for review failed.

Gross LJ, Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin)
Bailii
Bribery Act 2010
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570116

Regina v Thompson: 1975

The defendant appealed saying that the prosecution had broken the principle ‘that it is only once that an indictment can be preferred upon the basis of one committal’.
Held: The trial had taken place upon an invalid indictment not properly founded on a committal nor preferred by leave of a High Court judge and the trial was therefore a nullity. The convictions were quashed.

[1975] 1 WLR 1425, [1975] 2 All ER 1028
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Regina v Cairns CACD 1983
The defendant was committed for trial on seven charges of fraud. An eighth was then added under a voluntary bill of indictment, and a circuit judge confirmed a new indictment with all the eight charges. He appealed.
Held: His appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.267618

Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys: HL 1977

Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. He was acquitted. Later he was charged with perjury said to arise from his untruthful evidence that he had not driven the car. At trial, the judge overruled a defence submission that the same constable who had given evidence at the first trial should not be allowed to give the same evidence at the second trial. It was argued that issue estoppel applied. The judge rejected the submission. The evidence was given. Humphrys was convicted of perjury. He appealed, and his conviction was quashed. The acquittal implied rejection of a police officer’s evidence, but the officer’s evidence was re-introduced. At the second trial. The defendant’s appeal succeeded.
Held: The House allowed the prosecutor’s appeal. The doctrine of issue estoppel had no place in English criminal law. The power to stop a prosecution for abuse of process should only be used in ‘most exceptional circumstances.’ It was doubtful whether magistrates had this jurisdiction at all. Courts should resist importing notions of issue estoppel or res judicata into the criminal law. Lord Salmon: ‘It is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene.’ However, every court has a right in its discretion to decline to hear proceedings on the ground that they are oppressive and an abuse of the process of the court. The house emphasised the inherent jurisdiction of a criminal court to prevent an abuse of process should be distinguished from a purported power in the trial judge to refuse to allow a prosecution to proceed, merely because he considered, as a matter of policy, that the prosecution ought not to have been brought, or that it should not continue.
Lord Salmon discussed the role of a judge in deciding whether a case should proceed: ‘A judge has not and should not appear to have any responsibility for the institution of prosecutions; nor has he power to refuse to allow a prosecution to proceed merely because he considers that, as a matter of policy, it ought not to have been brought. It is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious tha the judge has the power to intervene.’

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon
[1977] AC 146, [1977] AC 1, [1976] 2 All ER 497, (1976) 63 Cr App R 95, [1976] 2 WLR 857
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd CACD 1972
For so long as it is possible for persons concerned in a single offence to be tried separately, it is inevitable that the verdicts returned by the two juries will on occasion appear to be inconsistent with one another. Eveleigh J: ‘It is necessary . .
Explained – Sambasivam v Director of Public Prosecutions, Federation of Malaya PC 1950
(Malaya) The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court after a lawful trial is not restricted to the fact that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. It is binding and conclusive in all subsequent . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks QBD 1985
The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Cited – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Cited – Hui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
Cited – Petch and Coleman v Regina CACD 13-Jul-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that a co-defendant, have been captured after fleeing the country had later been treated more leniently, a plea of manslaughter having been accepted.
Held: In order to substitute . .
Cited – Regina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2000) CACD 23-Nov-2000
The defendant had faced a charge of possessing an offensive weapon, namely a rice flail. The judge invited the prosecution to reconsider the case before it started, but the case went ahead. After the jury was empanelled, but before the prosecutor . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Cited – Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Cited – Hertfordshire County Council v National Grid Gas Plc Admn 2-Nov-2007
The council laid complaints against the defenedant that it had not properly re-instated road surfaces after completing works. It now appealed, by way of case stated, against the court’s acceptance of the defendant’s argument that the large number of . .
Cited – Maxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.219688

Times Newspapers Ltd v Abdulaziz: CACD 8 Jul 2016

The newspaper challenged an order that the part of the defendant’s trial for rape which related to his character and history should be heard excluding the press.
Held: The order stood. Clearly such an order could be made only after careful consideration, and was a metter of great sensitivity. The fact that some element might already have been disclosed by accident did not undermine the order. The particular facts which could not themselves be relayed openly in this case supported the need for the order.

Gross LJ, Wyn Williams J, Hilliard QC HHJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 887, [2016] 1 WLR 4366, [2016] WLR(D) 381, [2016] Crim LR 939, [2016] 2 Cr App R 28, [2016] EMLR 25
Bailii, WLRD
Contempt of Court Act 1981 11
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566817

Regina v Ford: CACD 1989

The appellant challenged the judge’s refusal to accede to an application to swear in a multi-racial jury.
Held: The judge was right in coming to the conclusion that he should not order a multi-racial jury to be empanelled. He had no power to do so. Lord Lane said: ‘The whole essence of the jury system is random selection.’
The trial judge had no discretion: ‘to discharge a competent juror or jurors in an attempt to secure a jury drawn from particular sections of the community, or otherwise to influence the overall composition of the jury.’
and: ‘So far as the mode of summoning the panel is concerned, the judge is limited, we repeat, to considering, in a challenge for cause, whether the summoning officer has displayed bias or other impropriety. If that cannot be established, the judge has no power to review or take action in respect of any procedures that are alleged to have led to the panel not being in fact ‘random’. Any such complaint would be a complaint of administrative error and has to be tackled by means other than the judges action. If the officer is in fact not performing his duty properly, in circumstances that fall short of his displaying bias or impropriety, he must be corrected, in other words, by administrative means.
As emphasised above, action could certainly not take the form of directions by the judge as to how the task of selection should in fact be performed. That being the case, in the present instance, although the judge was not given the opportunity of argument on this point to any extent, he was right in the upshot to come to the conclusion that he should not order a multi-racial jury to be empanelled, because he had no power to do so.’

Lord Lane LCJ
[1989] 89 Cr App R 278
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownlow CA 1980
Two police officers were being brought to trial, charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. They applied to the trial judge for an order directing the prosecution to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Tarrant CACD 18-Dec-1997
At a first trial it was suspected that a juror had been approached, and a retrial was ordered. The prosecutor applied to have the trial moved out of the area to avoid a repetition, but the judge directed instead that a jury protrection order be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.450340

Ismail, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 6 Jul 2016

The claimant ha been involved in the management of a company operating a ferry in Egypt. The claimant had been acquitted in Egypt of criminal liability, but then convicted in his absence on appeal, after submissions made on his behalf were discounted because of his absence. After sentence to imprisonment, the Egyptian court requested the SSHD to serve its notice of conviction on him in the UK, which the SSHD acceded to. The claimant sought to challenge that decision saying that the SSHD had a discretion whether or not to serve the notice, and having felt obliged to serve it, had not exercised that discretion properly. The Court was now asked as to the existence and extent of any such discretion under the 2003 Act, and if necessary were the claimant’s article 6 human rights engaged.
Held: The SS’s appeal succeeded. Generally, though not always, the service alone of a judgment would not engage article 8.
The decision of the Secretary of State to serve the judgment on Mr Ismail did not expose him to a risk of violation of his Convention rights. Service of the judgment would have placed Mr Ismail in a dilemma – whether to return to Egypt to appeal the judgment, or suffer the consequences of the judgment becoming final – but having to face that dilemma did not amount to a possible violation of his article 6 rights. Service of the Egyptian judgment did not have a direct consequence of exposing Mr Ismail to ‘proscribed ill treatment’. It reduced his options but did not carry the inevitable outcome of exposure to a violation of his rights. He could avoid that exposure by remaining in the UK.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 37, [2016] WLR(D) 363, [2016] 1 WLR 2814, UKSC 2013/0160
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 1, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
At Admn – Ismail v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 26-Mar-2013
The court was asked as to the extent of the Secretary of State’s discretion and obligation to consider a person’s Article 6 rights when requested personally to serve a judgment of an overseas court pursuant to a request for mutual legal assistance . .
Cited – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
Cited – Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566484

Rogers, Regina v: CACD 1 Jul 2016

The court was asked as to as to the circumstances in which s.23 of the 1968 Act applies to fresh evidence or other information which an appellant may seek to adduce before this court on an appeal against sentence.
Held: The rules applicable to the admission of fresh evidence under sectio 23 apply also to appeals against sentence.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ
[2016] WLR(D) 358, [2016] EWCA Crim 801
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Jones (S) 1997
The court considered the practice applicable when seeking to adduce new expert evidence on an appeal against sentence.
Lord Bingham CJ said: ‘Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a . .
Cited – A and B, Regina v CACD 23-Apr-1998
The two defendants appealed against sentences for being involved in importation of drugs. They said that they had assisted the police.
Held: The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is, in relation to sentencing, a court of review. Its function . .
Cited – Caines, Regina v, Regina v Roberts CACD 23-Nov-2006
The prisoners appealed the review of the recommended minimum terms they must serve on that term being reviewed by the court, saying that the court should have made allowance for the exceptional progress to rehabilitation made in prison.
Held: . .
Cited – Erskine, Regina v; Regina v Williams CACD 14-Jul-2009
The defendants had been separately convicted of murder several years ago. They sought the quashing of the convictions and substitution of convictions for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Held: The appeal of Erskine . .
Cited – Beesley and Another, Regina v CACD 18-Apr-2011
These two appeals raised issues as to the evidence or other information which a sentencing court and this court should receive and take into account when the issue of dangerousness is being considered for the purposes of imprisonment for public . .
Cited – Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Regina v CACD 3-Jun-2015
The company appealed against the sentence imposed on a finding that it was in breach of the 2010 Regulations. It sought to bring new evidence.
Held: In sentencing appeals the court will scrutinise intensely any application to give a factual . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566428

Regina v Huntingdon Crown Court ex parte Jordan: 1981

The appellant, a wife had pleaded guilty to shoplifting before the magistrates, but now sought to allege that she had committed the act alleged and entered her plea only as a result of threats and pressure put upon her by her husband, who was jointly charged with her.
Held: It was open to the court to examine an otherwise apparently unequivocal guilty plea where duress, coercion or persuasion of some kind were alleged. In such a case the matter should be remitted to the magistrates.

[1981] 2 All ER 872, [1981] 3 WLR 27, [1981] QB 857
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Norwich Crown Court ex parte Estabrook QBD 2000
The court considered the ability of the Crown Court to investigate a suggestion that defendant’s plea was made under duress from his lawyer. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.239724

Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review: CANI 12 Dec 2003

Appeal from a decision dismissing an application by Hugh Jordan for judicial review of the ‘continuing decision’ of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland refusing to give reasons other than in the most general terms for his decision not to prosecute the police officer who caused the death of Pearse Jordan, the son of the appellant.

Nicholson LJ, McCollum LJ and Campbell LJ
[2003] NICA 54
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 12-Sep-2003
The deceased had been shot by a sergeant of the RUC. The party sought to challenge a decision against the grant of legal aid. . .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review (29) CANI 10-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review (30) CANI 10-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 4-Sep-2001
An application was made for the production of documents by the police to support representations to be made on behalf of the family of the deceased to the coroner. The police requested but were refused undertakings as to their use. . .
See Also – Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 12-Jan-2004
. .
See Also – Re Jordan QBNI 6-Jan-2003
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 28-May-2002
Whether the appeal against the decision of Kerr J dismissing the appellant’s applications for judicial review should be adjourned pending final determination of the proceedings in the English cases of R (Middleton) v HM Coroner for the Western . .
Cited – Regina v Duporte CACD 1980
A sentencer should not ordinarily intervene to upset the course of a probation order, unless there is reason to do so. . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .

Cited by:
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 12-Sep-2003
The deceased had been shot by a sergeant of the RUC. The party sought to challenge a decision against the grant of legal aid. . .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review (29) CANI 10-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review (30) CANI 10-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 12-Jan-2004
. .
Cited – Re Jordan QBNI 6-Jan-2003
. .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 28-May-2002
Whether the appeal against the decision of Kerr J dismissing the appellant’s applications for judicial review should be adjourned pending final determination of the proceedings in the English cases of R (Middleton) v HM Coroner for the Western . .
See Also – Jordan, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 4-Sep-2001
An application was made for the production of documents by the police to support representations to be made on behalf of the family of the deceased to the coroner. The police requested but were refused undertakings as to their use. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.202005

Dworzecki: ECJ 24 May 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Preliminary reference – urgent preliminary ruling procedure – police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 4 bis, paragraph 1 – surrender procedures between Member States – Terms and Conditions execution – non-execution Grounds for optional – Exceptions – compulsory execution – Sentence imposed in absentia – Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means’ – autonomous concepts of Union law

C-108/16, [2016] EUECJ C-108/16, ECLI:EU:C:2016:346
Bailii

European, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564872

MN and Others: ECJ 21 Jan 2020

(Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – Article 6 (1) – Concept of ‘Issuing judicial authority’ – Effective judicial protection

C-813/19, [2020] EUECJ C-813/19PPU_CO, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 31
Bailii
European

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654715

Dulai and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 26 Apr 2012

The claimants challenged the issue of search and seizure warrants.
Held: Stanley Burnton LJ set out the principle which the courts ought to apply in the context of search warrants: ‘The question for this court, in judicial review proceedings, is whether the information that it is alleged should have been given to the magistrate might reasonably have led him to refuse to issue the warrant.’

Stanley Burnton LJ, Treacy J
[2012] EWHC 1055 (Admin), [2012] 2 Cr App R 19, [2013] 1 WLR 220, [2013] Crim LR 86, [2012] ACD 76, [2012] 3 All ER 764
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.453014

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department and Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Risley ex parte Hargreaves, Briggs and Green: CA 20 Nov 1996

No sufficient expectation which could form the basis of a judicial review arose from an agreement for prison home leave which was later denied. The only legitimate expectation of the prisoners was to have their applications individually considered in light of whatever policy was in force at the time.

Hirst LJ
Times 03-Dec-1996, Gazette 05-Feb-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1006, [1997] 1 WLR 906
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Criminal Practice, Administrative

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.140873

Regina v Leonard Gibson: CACD 23 Feb 2000

Where a defendant was accused in relation to the acquisition of assets by criminal conduct, the onus was not on the prosecution to disprove the defendant’s assertions about how the assets had been acquired, but rather it was for the defendant to establish on a balance of probabilities that the defence applied.
Where a defendant was accused in relation to the acquisition of assets by criminal conduct, the onus was not on the prosecution to disprove the defendant’s assertions about how the assets had been acquired, but rather it was for the defendant to establish on a balance of probabilities that the defence applied.

Times 03-Mar-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 20
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 93B
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.158670

Re National Crime Agency: Admn 12 Feb 2020

The NCA had applied for disclosure in the course of a money laundering investigation. It now appealed from a refusal to extend the order to bank accounts subject to account freezing orders made previously in course of frozen funds investigation by police. Consideration of the meaning and ambit of s.357(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Held: The appeal was allowed.

Lord Justice Davis
[2020] EWHC 268 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 3224, [2020] WLR(D) 90
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.648145

Inns, Regina v: CACD 4 May 2018

Singh LJ gave the following helpful summary of fundamental principles as to the extent to which the judge may properly intervene during the examination and cross-examination of witnesses:
‘First, the tribunal of fact in a criminal trial in the Crown Court is the jury and no one else.
Secondly, ours is an adversarial system, not an inquisitorial one. The role of the judge is therefore to act as a neutral umpire, to ensure a fair trial between the prosecution and the defence. The judge should not enter the arena so as to appear to be taking sides. . .
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong in principle with a trial judge asking questions of witnesses in order to assist the jury. That indeed is one of the fundamental functions of the trial judge. For example, this may be done to clarify a point that may arise on the face of a document or in an immediate response to an answer that has just been given by a witness. Otherwise, it may often be preferable for the judge to wait until the end of the evidence given by that witness, or at least the end of the evidence-in-chief. Often things that are not clear may become clearer once the evidence-in-chief has been completed.
Fourthly, since ours is an adversarial system it is for the prosecution to prove its case and it will have the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant if he or she chooses to give evidence. It will often be unnecessary for the judge to ask any questions during the defendant’s evidence-in-chief because it should be for the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant. It is certainly not the role of the judge to cross-examine the defendant.
Fifthly, it is particularly important that the defendant should have the opportunity to give his or her account to the jury in the way that he or she would like that evidence to come out, elicited through questions from their own advocate. If there were constant interruptions of the evidence-in-chief there is a risk that a defendant will not be able to give his or her account fully and in the manner they would wish to put before the jury.
Sixthly, this is not affected by the fact that the defence account may appear to be implausible or even fanciful. If it is truly incredible, the prosecution can reasonably be expected to expose its deficiencies in cross-examination and the jury will see through it. If anything, unwarranted interventions by a judge may simply prove to be counterproductive.’

[2018] EWCA Crim 1081
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Marchant, Regina v CACD 23-Nov-2018
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape saying that the judge had improperly intervened to prevent him presenting his case properly.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Although the judge had overstepped the proper boundaries in his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.630986

Coleman, Regina v: CACD 18 Oct 2016

Where a convicted defendant has been ordered in the Crown Court to pay an amount towards the prosecution costs at a time when it is properly assessed that he has the assets to meet such a liability, can, or at all events should, he thereafter be permitted to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) seeking a quashing or reduction of the costs order on the ground of a subsequent change in financial circumstances? The appellant says that he can and should and seeks to rely on a previous decided case to that effect. The respondent Crown says that he cannot, or at all events should not, and the appropriate application should be made to the Magistrates’ Court as the collecting and enforcing court.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1665, [2017] 4 WLR 29
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.570984

Dechert Solicitors, Regina (on The Application of) v Southwark Crown Court: Admn 14 Jun 2001

Application for the judicial review of an Order made in a criminal matter against a Mr Daulby. His solicitors, who are the Claimants in these judicial review proceedings, sought directions in respect of the Restraint Order which had been made by the High Court in respect of Mr Daulby and restrained him from dealing with his assets in much the same way as a freezing injunction does in civil proceedings.

Stanley Burnton J
[2001] EWHC Admin 477
Bailii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562912

Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court at Leicester and Others: Admn 24 Jan 2001

Application for judicial review in respect of an order for costs made against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in relation to proceedings brought by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Lord Wool of Barnes LCJ, Newman J
[2001] EWHC Admin 33
Bailii
Prosecution of Offences Act 198519(1), Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562910

O’Donoghue, Re Criminal Justice Act 1988: Admn 10 Feb 2004

In its definition of realisable property, section 74(1) does not confine it to property held when the confiscation order was made.

[2004] EWHC 176 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 74(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In the Matter of Christopher Adams, In the Matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Admn 26-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed a refusal of a certificate of inadequacy to an amount due under a confiscation order, saying that the court had wrongly allowed for the value of a consultancy agreement under which he was entitled to receive an annual fee for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.193507

Ellison, Regina (on The Application of) v Teesside Magistrates’ Court: Admn 16 Jan 2001

Contention that committal in custody was without jurisdiction.
Held: ‘the magistrates were under a misapprehension as to how to deal with the situation where a defendant is granted bail by the magistrates or a Crown Court and then does not comply with the conditions of the bail so that he is brought back before the magistrates’ court under section 7′

The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ
[2001] EWHC 11 (Admin)
Bailii
Bail Act 1976 7
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.396526

PS v Germany: ECHR 20 Dec 2001

The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child’s mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly after the offence. The daughter was not available to be questioned by the Court or on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the Regional Court ordered a psychological assessment of the daughter’s credibility. The expert reported that her statements were credible. Her parents refused to bring her to the Appeal Court for questioning. The appeal was dismissed.
Held: These procedures could not ‘be considered as having enabled the defence to challenge the evidence of (the daughter), reported in Court by third persons, one of them a close relative’ and accordingly held that there had been a violation of article 6: ‘All the evidence must normally be produced at a public hearing, in the presence of the accused, with a view to adversarial argument. There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence. As a general rule, the accused must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage’.

(2001) 36 EHRR 1139, [2001] ECHR 875, 33900/96, [2001] ECHR 884
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.167075

Allen, Regina v: CACD 27 Jun 2019

Jury Tampering Provisions

A applied for permission to appeal against conviction, saying that the decision on his guilt was made by the trial Judge who had discharged the jury that had been sworn to try the case, and then proceeded to give judgment himself. The Judge was exercising the powers conferred by section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in a case where there has been jury tampering. The applicant accepts that this was the case, and that it was necessary to bring the jury’s role to an end. His case is that he was wholly uninvolved in the jury tampering, and that the right course of action would have been to terminate the trial altogether and start again with another jury. He submits that it was wrong for a Judge alone to determine whether he was guilty, and he seeks an order for a retrial.
Held: The statute had given the defendant opportunity to appeal the use of section 46 at the time, and he had no taken it.

Holroyde LJ, Warby, Julian Knowles JJ
[2019] EWCA Crim 1256
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 46 47
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.642570

Evans and Others v The Serious Fraud Office: QBD 12 Feb 2015

The claimants had had criminal charges brought against them by the defendants. A court had ordered them discharged, but the defendant had recommenced proceedings and these second set of proceedings had also been dismissed by the court. They now applied for their costs.
Held: The SFO’s conduct had been described as improper: ‘This application was, on any view, outside the norm. In my view, the conduct of the SFO took it there; and, despite the very high hurdle, I am satisfied that that conduct is worthy of being marked by this court with costs on the indemnity basis.’

Hickinbottom J
[2015] EWHC 263 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .
Cited – Wates Construction Ltd v HGP Greentree Allchurch Evans Ltd TCC 10-Oct-2005
A unit constructed by the claimant had collapsed under a weight of rainwater. It had been constructed according to a design provided by the defendants. The claimants had discontinued the action on the morning of the trial, and the defendants now . .
Refusal of Voluntary indictment – Serious Fraud Office v Evans and Others QBD 14-Nov-2014
The court faced an application by the SFO for a voluntary bill of indictment. Similar charges against the defendants had been discharged. The allegations involved very substantial alleged frauds. . .
Cited – Regina v Horsham Justices, ex parte Reeves (Note) QBD 1980
The police had decided simply to re-lay charges which had already been dismissed after an extensive depositions hearing. The charges were simplified but essentially the same.
Held: This was an abuse of process. A court is possessed of a . .
Cited – Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .

Cited by:
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.542603

Walker, Regina v: CACD 17 Dec 2021

Application pursuant to section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, for leave to appeal against a terminating ruling made in the retrial of the respondent, Gary Walker, charged with the murder or manslaughter of Audra Bancroft.. The basis of the application upon which this court is asked to reverse his ruling is that the judge, Holgate J, is said to have made a ruling that it was not reasonable for him to have made ; see section 67(c) of the 2003 Act.

Lady Justice Macur
[2021] EWCA Crim 1956
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.670722

Henderson v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 9 Mar 2016

Appeal by way of Case Stated from the decision convicting him for three offences of harassment contrary to s.4A of the Public Order Act 1986 on 1 May 2015. These convictions followed the Appellant’s convictions on 10 April 2015 for three offences of racially aggravated harassment contrary to s.31(1)(b) of Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Both sets of convictions were in respect of offences against the same victims and arising out of the same facts.

Simon LJ, Cooke, Leggatt JJ
[2016] EWHC 464 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560725

Ekbatani v Sweden: ECHR 26 May 1988

The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision.
Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first instance, and the absence of a public hearing before a second or third instance tribunal might be justified, and since the Court of Appeal had to make what a ‘full assessment of the question of the applicant’s guilt or innocence’ its re-examination of the conviction ought to have comprised a full rehearing. ‘ . . ..it flows from the notion of a fair trial that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle, be entitled to be present at the trial hearing’.

10465/83, [1988] 13 EHRR 504, [1988] ECHR 2, 10563/83, [1988] ECHR 6, [1988] ECHR 2, [1988] ECHR 6
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Lobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Cited – A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.165001

Dwyer v Regina: CACD 11 Feb 2011

Further fresh evidential materials were sought to be relied upon in a second prosecution of the defendant.
Held: ‘In our judgment, the words ‘the same or substantially the same facts’ or ‘the same incident’ refer to the relevant state of affairs as they existed to the knowledge of the prosecutor at the date the proceedings were concluded’. The defendant had been charged and sentenced in the second set of proceedings on ‘almost precisely the same basis’ as he had been sentenced in the first set of proceedings. The defendant may have been exceptionally fortunate in the sentence passed in the first proceedings: but ‘it is not a basis for giving the prosecution a second bite at the same cherry’.

[2012] EWCA Crim 10,
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
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 – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wangige, Regina v CACD 14-Oct-2020
Second Prosecution on Same Facts was An Abuse
The defendant appealed his conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. He appealed from the refusal of the judge to give a stay the prosecution as an abuse He had been previously prosecuted for a lesser offence on the same facts.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.654662

Jones, Regina v: CACD 21 Dec 2018

The defendant, with learning difficulties had been subject to a cross examination described as akin to a closing speech. He appealed from conviction, saying that the court had given insufficient consideration to his disability, making the conviction unfair.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The impression created by the defendant was crucial to his defence, and the disabilities left him vulnerable as shown after the admission of fresh medical evidence which made it clear that he would have had difficulty dealing with leading questions asked in cross-examination, which may have left the jury with a false impression.

Simon LJ, Carr J, Judge Picton
[2018] EWCA Crim 2816, [2019] WLR(D) 16
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.633139

Sims, Regina v: CACD 26 Jan 2016

The court was asked whether the Recorder was right to continue the appellant’s trial in circumstances where the appellant had deliberately and repeatedly rendered himself incapable of giving evidence or of taking a meaningful part in his trial through the voluntary ingestion of drugs.

Nurnett LJ, Blake J, Batty QC HHJ Rec York
[2016] EWCA Crim 9
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560183

National Crime Agency v Abacha: Admn 21 Jan 2015

‘There are three applications before me today. The first is an application for continuation of a prohibition order made by Foskett J on 2 July 2014 (which I shall refer to as ‘the prohibition order’). That froze over andpound;100 million worth of assets which the United States of America alleges represent proceeds of the frauds of General Abacha and his associates. The second application, by two Respondents, which I shall refer to as ‘the Blue Companies’, is for an order for disclosure by the National Crime Agency (which I will refer to as ‘the NCA’) of the letters of request for mutual legal assistance sent by the United States of America to the United Kingdom. The third is an application for variation of the prohibition order to permit the Blue Companies’ legal expenses to be met from the assets that were frozen pursuant to the prohibition order.’

Elisabeth Laing J
[2015] EWHC 357 (Admin), [2015] Lloyd’s Rep FC 41
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559679

McKenzie, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of The Serious Fraud Office: Admn 27 Jan 2016

Rolled up application for permission to apply for judicial review of whether the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices that have been seized using statutory powers, or produced in response to a notice, is lawful.
Held: The claim failed. The defendant’s use of in-house experts to isolate material potentially subject to Legal Professional Privilege was lawful.

Burnett LJ, Irwin J
[2016] EWHC 102 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 42
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559357

Hubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Manchester Crown Court and Another (2): Admn 18 Dec 2015

The claimant challenged orders consequential on the DPP’ decision to intervene to stop her intended private prosecution of two doctors

Burnett LJ, Irwin J
[2015] EWHC 3734 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 18-Dec-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the DPP to intervene in and abandon her private prosecution of two doctors involved n what she said was a decision to carry out abortions which decsions were affected by the sex of the foetus. At . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557372

Hubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 18 Dec 2015

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the DPP to intervene in and abandon her private prosecution of two doctors involved n what she said was a decision to carry out abortions which decsions were affected by the sex of the foetus. At the instigation of a newspapers, two women had attended clinics requesting terminations on grounds they said associated with the sex of the foetus. After considering the evidence the DPP had himself declined to prosecute.

Burnett LJ, Irwin J
[2015] EWHC 3733 (Admin)
Bailii
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 58, Abortion Act 1967 1, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 6(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Hubert, Regina (on The Application of) v Manchester Crown Court and Another (2) Admn 18-Dec-2015
The claimant challenged orders consequential on the DPP’ decision to intervene to stop her intended private prosecution of two doctors . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557371

Antoine v Regina: CACD 15 Oct 2014

The Court was asked whether a prosecution should have been stayed as an abuse of the process of the court where the defendant had already been convicted and sentenced for lesser offences arising out of the same facts. The defendant was found with a loaded hand gun. When remanded, he was overheard saying that he was ‘fucked’ and was looking at a sentence of 10 years as ‘I got caught with a loaded hand gun’. The charging advice and decision of the Crown Prosecution Service referred to this being a loaded hand gun, ready to be fired; that the defendant was ‘facing a lengthy sentence’; and that the defendant was a danger and involved in gang violence. Disposal in the Crown Court was in terms contemplated.
By error, the charge was under s 1 (1) (a) of the Firearms Act 1968, possession of a firearm without a licence. When the matter was first before the Magistrates’ Court, it was dealt with by a paralegal for the prosecution. No request for the matter to be sent to the Crown Court was made. The defendant pleaded guilty on that day and was sentenced, also on that day, to 4 months’ imprisonment. The blunder was noted almost immediately and a request to the Magistrates to reopen the matter was made the following day. Following refusal, the defendant was charged with further firearms offences. The Crown Court judge refused an application for a stay, saying that there were special circumstances; whereupon the defendant pleaded guilty.
The Court upheld that ruling; the CPS mistakes had resulted in the defendant ‘being charged with the wrong offences and [being] dealt with in the wrong court’. It was observed that no-one with responsibility for the case correctly applied their minds to the appropriate charges: and the second set of proceedings involved a ‘move from misconceived charges to correct charges’. On the facts of the case, the decisions in Beedie and Dwyer were to be distinguished.

Davis LJ, Thirlwall DBE, Andrews DBE JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 1971
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wangige, Regina v CACD 14-Oct-2020
Second Prosecution on Same Facts was An Abuse
The defendant appealed his conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. He appealed from the refusal of the judge to give a stay the prosecution as an abuse He had been previously prosecuted for a lesser offence on the same facts.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.537582

Regina v Rochford: CACD 28 Jul 2010

The defendant appealed against sentence after being found in contempt. His lawyers had filed a defence statement, based on the defendant’s case, which the judge felt was inadequate. It was said that the defendant was in contempt after failing to amend it as required by the judge. He appealed against a sentence of imprisonment.
Held: Section 11 provides the sanction for failure to comply with the statutory duty, first to file a defence statement, and second to put into it those things which are required by section 6A. The sanction is comment by either the court or any other party and the freedom of the tribunal of fact to conclude that the explanation for such a failure contributes to the case against the defendant as indicating that the failure is attributable to his guilt. The course taken by the judge was different, but that this was at a pretrial stage where different sanctions were available.
At the time, it was not possible for the judge to know whether the defence statement was incomplete, and nor was he entitled to require counsel to reveal his instructions if no positive case was going to be made in the choices apparent at the time. ‘ The sanction for non-compliance is explicit in the statute in section 11. It is not open to the court to add an additional extra statutory sanction of punishment for contempt of court.’
Since the duty to file a defence statement was statutory, it was not open to deence counsel to advise a client not to do so. What should happen where a defendant proposed no positive defence to his lawyers must be decided by them on a case to case basis, but: ‘The defence statement must say that the defendant does not admit the offence or the relevant part of it as the case may be, and calls for the Crown to prove it. But it must also say that he advances no positive case because if he is going to advance a positive case that must appear in the defence statement and notice of it must be given. Unless the requirement is that the statement is made but no positive case is advanced it would be open to defendants simply to ignore section 5(5) and 6A.’ and ‘the lawyer’s duty is first of all never to advise either the absence of a defence statement or the omission from it of something which section 6A requires to be there because of the way the trial is going to be conducted. The lawyer’s duty is not to give the defendant advice on what to do. The lawyer’s duty is to explain the statutory obligation that he has and to explain the consequences which follow from disobedience of it.’

Hughes LJ VP, Rafferty DBE, Maddison JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1928, [2011] 1 Cr App R 11, [2011] 1 WLR 534
Bailii
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Adminsitration of Justice Act 1960 13
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Penner, Regina v CACD 5-May-2010
The combination of the 1996 Act and the Criminal Procedure Rules had or at least were designed to abolish what was known as trial by ambush. . .
Cited – Kelly, Regina (on the Application of) v Warley Magistrates Court and The Law Society Admn 31-Jul-2007
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Farooqi and Others CACD 30-Sep-2013
Defendants appealed against their conviction of terrorist acts alleging incompetence by their leading counsel.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ Notwithstanding many unfortunate features of this trial the convictions of three of the defendants, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.426481

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 further action if the appeal did not succeed as required under the Order.
Held: The prosecution’s right of appeal under Article 4 is, just as is its civilian equivalent under s 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, an interlocutory appeal. The assertion to the contrary made on behalf of the defendant in the course of argument was wrong. The scheme for these appeals is that the proceedings in the court below stand adjourned pending the hearing of the appeal: see Article 4(10), the mirror of s 58(10), under which the ruling is to have no effect pending the outcome of the appeal.
Hughes LJ said: ‘we are unable to see how these statutory provisions can be read as meaning anything other than that there is no right of appeal unless the undertaking is given to the court of trial at the time of the announcement of the intention to appeal. The Order, with s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, represents a major departure from the former law. The Crown is given a right of appeal in relation to trial on indictment for the first time. Moreover, it is given a right of interlocutory appeal. The new right is given on strict terms. It may be that the new right could have been as effectively controlled if the statute and order had provided that whether or not an undertaking in the terms of article 4(8) was given in open court, any appeal was to be on terms that if leave were refused, or the appeal abandoned, or it failed in due course, acquittal should follow. Or it may be that alternative form of control would not be so effective. What is clear is that alternative form of control is not what has been enacted. The words ‘may not . . unless, at or before that time’ must be given their effect. They require the giving of the undertaking in open court at the time of invocation of the right of appeal and they say that the prosecution ‘may not’ inform the court it intends to appeal, unless this is done. The object is clearly to require the Crown to commit itself from the outset. Nor can we see any proper basis of construction under which what is in section 58(8) . . can be read differently according to whether the ruling under challenge is ipso facto fatal to the prosecution or one in relation to which the Crown chooses to give the acquittal agreement. There would, moreover, be considerable scope for argument about which category some rulings fall into. On these grounds alone, we are unable to see that we have any jurisdiction to hear the appeal against either ruling.
Prosecutors who wish to launch appeals against rulings must give the article . . section 58(8) undertaking in open court at the time of invoking the right of appeal. We are not asked to consider whether it must be given in any particular form, and have not done so; it may well be that it can be given in shorthand or by reference to the statute; given, however, it must be, and that must happen at or before the time of invoking the right of appeal.’
The Elrington principle is a rule against sequential trials. It is in no sense breached if two charges arising out of the same facts are put before the same court on the same occasion.
Hughes LJ explained the requirement for the acquittal undertaking: ‘ . . we are unable to see how these statutory provisions can be read as meaning anything other than that there is no right of appeal unless the undertaking is given to the court of trial at the time of the announcement of the intention to appeal. The Order, with section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, represents a major departure from the former law. The Crown is given a right of appeal in relation to trial on indictment for the first time. Moreover, it is given a right of interlocutory appeal. The new right is given on strict terms . . The words ‘may not unless, at or before that time’ must be given their effect. They require the giving of the undertaking in open court at the time of invocation of the right of appeal and they say that the prosecution ‘may not’ inform the court it intends to appeal, unless this is done. . .
As we have made clear, Art. 4 of the Order is in terms materially identical to s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Prosecutors who wish to launch appeals against rulings must give the Art.4(8)/s.58(8) undertaking in open court at the time of invoking the right of appeal. We are not asked to consider whether it must be given in any particular form, and have not done so; it may well be that it can be given in shorthand or by reference to the statute; given, however, it must be, and that must happen at or before the time of invoking the right of appeal.’

Hughes LJ, Treacy J, Sir Peter Cresswell
[2008] EWCA Crim 1034, [2008] 2 Cr App R 37, [2008] RTR 25, [2008] 1 WLR 2881, [2009] 1 All ER 1103
Bailii
Courts-Martial (Prosecution Appeals) Order 2000 (SI 2006/1786) 4(8), Criminal Justice Act 2003 58(8), Air Force Act 1955 36(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Regina v Forest of Dean Justices ex parte Farley CACD 1990
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v R CACD 29-Feb-2008
The court considered the application of section 58 to prosecution appeals and the use of the ‘acquittal agreement’. . .
Explained – Regina v Elrington 9-Nov-1861
The appellant’s co-accused had been summarily tried and acquitted of common assault. The accused was subsequently indicted on the same facts for assault causing grievous bodily harm and assault causing actual bodily harm. The accused demurred.
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 – 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 by:
Cited – NT, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse. The prosecution had failed give the undertaking necessary on lodging the appeal to the court against whose ruling it wanted to appeal, that it agreed that the defendant should be . .
Cited – PY, Regina v CACD 22-Jan-2019
Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work
The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for . .
Cited – Wangige, Regina v CACD 14-Oct-2020
Second Prosecution on Same Facts was An Abuse
The defendant appealed his conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. He appealed from the refusal of the judge to give a stay the prosecution as an abuse He had been previously prosecuted for a lesser offence on the same facts.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Armed Forces

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.267714

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 abuse of process. He asserted that the rule in R v Erlington should have prevented his second prosecution. The Crown Court judge drew a distinction between the charges, saying that the first offence related to the amount of alcohol in the blood whereas the second offence related to the manner of the driving.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Clarke LJ said: ‘The authorities do not consider in detail what is meant by the same or substantially the same facts but, in our view, as Lord Pearce [in Connelly] makes clear in the passage already quoted, they essentially mean that the Crown should not be permitted, save in special or exceptional circumstances, to bring a second set of proceedings arising out of the same incident as the first set of proceedings after the first set of proceedings has been concluded. The principle . . is that the Crown should decide at the outset, or at the latest before the conclusion of the first set of proceedings, what charges it wishes to bring arising out of the same incident. Any other approach is unfairly oppressive to a defendant. ‘ The crown suggested that the charges complained of different behaviours: ‘both these prosecutions and the allegations in them arose out of the same or substantially the same facts, namely driving the appellant’s car on the A3 at Malden.’ The manner of the driving had been relevant to the penalty imposed on the first offence; and, on the second offence, the fault of driving with excess alcohol would be relevant both as to the nature of the driving (since the effects of alcohol potentially bore on the issues of driving dangerously) and as to the penalty for dangerous driving. The court then went on: ‘In all these circumstances, it seems to us that both these prosecutions and the allegations in them arose out of the same or substantially the same facts, namely driving the appellant’s car on the A3 at Malden. They both arose out of that same incident, in much the same way as in Beedie . . ‘
There were no special circumstances which might entitle the Crown to the second set of proceedings.

Clarke LJ, Poole, Elias JJ
[2005] EWCA Crim 33
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
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 – Regina v Forest of Dean Justices ex parte Farley CACD 1990
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 . .
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 – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Regina v Miles 1890
. .
Cited – Regina v Elrington 9-Nov-1861
The appellant’s co-accused had been summarily tried and acquitted of common assault. The accused was subsequently indicted on the same facts for assault causing grievous bodily harm and assault causing actual bodily harm. The accused demurred.
Cited – Regina v Feltham Magistrate’s Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Feb-2001
The court considered how cases should be handled where video evidence of relevance to a defendant’s case had been destroyed, and the defendant asserted abuse of process.
Held: The discretion to stay proceedings should be employed only in . .
Cited – Regina v Woodward (Terence) CACD 7-Dec-1994
On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .

Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander Admn 27-Jul-2010
The defendant had crashed his car after driving off with a girl, and while being chased by another car driven by her boyfriend. The police first cautioned him for false imprisonment, but then prosecuted him for careless driving. The prosecutor . .
Cited – Wangige, Regina v CACD 14-Oct-2020
Second Prosecution on Same Facts was An Abuse
The defendant appealed his conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. He appealed from the refusal of the judge to give a stay the prosecution as an abuse He had been previously prosecuted for a lesser offence on the same facts.
Held: . .
Cited – Dwyer v Regina CACD 11-Feb-2011
Further fresh evidential materials were sought to be relied upon in a second prosecution of the defendant.
Held: ‘In our judgment, the words ‘the same or substantially the same facts’ or ‘the same incident’ refer to the relevant state of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.226246

Regina v Elrington: 9 Nov 1861

The appellant’s co-accused had been summarily tried and acquitted of common assault. The accused was subsequently indicted on the same facts for assault causing grievous bodily harm and assault causing actual bodily harm. The accused demurred.
Held: The demurrer was upheld, and the case could not proceed. By virtue of sections 28 and 29 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, a certificate of acquittal of common assault released the accused ‘. . we must bear in mind the well-established principle of our criminal law that a series of charges shall not be preferred, and, from all further or other proceedings, civil or criminal, for the same cause’. The plea of autrefois convict is that ‘whether a party accused of a minor offence is acquitted or convicted, he shall not be charged again on the same facts in a more aggravated form.’ The presumption in favour of a stay is even stronger where the second charge does not merely arise out of the same facts but is an aggravated form of the first.

Cockburn CJ
[1861] 1 B and S 688, 121 ER 170, [1861] EngR 901, (1861) 1 B and S 688, (1861) 121 ER 870
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .
Approved – Regina v Miles 1890
. .
Cited – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Wangige, Regina v CACD 14-Oct-2020
Second Prosecution on Same Facts was An Abuse
The defendant appealed his conviction of causing death by dangerous driving. He appealed from the refusal of the judge to give a stay the prosecution as an abuse He had been previously prosecuted for a lesser offence on the same facts.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.180639

Regina v Gilfoyle: CACD 6 Nov 1995

The Court of Appeal has power to receive and call for additional evidence in interests of justice, and even though it had been ruled inadmissible at the trial if was relevant.

Gazette 29-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 06-Nov-1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1991 23(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.86695

Manser, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: Admn 15 Dec 2015

The Claimant seeks to challenge an Adult Caution administered on her by the Defendant on 15 July 2014 for an alleged offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She said that the police had failed to disclose properly the extent of injury said to have been suffered by the victim.

Supperstone J
[2015] EWHC 3642 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557150

Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland): SC 16 Dec 2015

Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility questions and devolution appeals. The case having already been cnsidered fully by the High Court o Justice inEdinburgh, the present courts jurusdiction was limited to the question of whether that court had considered the appeal before it applyng the correct law and procedures. It had done so and therefore the appeal failed. It was outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to visit the merits of the decision by way of re-assessing whether the conviction had been safe.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson, Lord Gill
[2015] UKSC 77, 2016 GWD 1-6, 2016 SLT 1, 2016 SCL 80, 2016 SCCR 119, UKSC 2014/0173
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Firearms Act 1968 17, Scotland Act 2012
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Paul Alexander Macklin v Her Majesty’sAdvocate HCJ 11-Sep-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction, complaining that the prosecution had failed to disclose before trial, items of evidence pointing to others as possibly responsible. . .
Cited – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the . .
Cited – McInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
The defendant complained that the prosecution had not disclosed the fact that a prosecution witness had convictions, and that had it been disclosed it would have undermined the prosecution. Other statements taken were not disclosed as had later . .
Cited – Mansell v United Kingdom ECHR 2003
The non-disclosure of material evidence in the trial proceedings was held to have been remedied by the Court of Appeal’s examination of the impact of the non-disclosure upon the safety of the conviction. . .
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Cited – Sinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556977

Brookfield Aviation International Ltd v The Guildford Crown Court and Others: Admn 4 Dec 2015

Renewed application for judicial review whereby the claimant seeks permission to challenge the issue and execution of a search warrant for its premises. The warrant was requested by a German prosecutor under mutual legal assistance pursuant to section 16 of the 2003 Act.

Beatson LJ, Cranston J
[2015] EWHC 3465 (Admin)
Bailii
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 16
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, International

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556465

Regina v Miles: 1890

Pollock B
(1890) 24 QB 243
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Elrington 9-Nov-1861
The appellant’s co-accused had been summarily tried and acquitted of common assault. The accused was subsequently indicted on the same facts for assault causing grievous bodily harm and assault causing actual bodily harm. The accused demurred.
Cited by:
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 – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.229700

Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Granada Television Limited: Admn 16 Oct 1998

A Scottish search warrant was executable in England since it counted as a summary act under repealed legislation, though was also subject to the protection in England against searches of journalist’s materials.

Times 22-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 974
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
Mentioned – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.139095

Regina v Crown Court At Snaresbrook ex parte Director of Serious Fraud Office: Admn 16 Oct 1998

A challenge to a judge’s dismissal of cases, or his refusal to stay an indictment in fraud cases transferred from the magistrates Court, should be by judicial review, and not by voluntary bill of indictment. This would give the defendant a chance to be heard.

Gazette 18-Nov-1998, Times 26-Oct-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 975, [1998] EWHC Admin 985
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Youth Court; Regina (H) v Camberwell Youth Court QBD 23-Jul-2004
The DPP sought directions as to the issuing of voluntary bills of indictment to have transferred to the Crown Court, allegations of robbery against youths between 12 and 14.
Held: A child convicted of an offence for which an adult would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.139096

Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Simpkins; Regina v Same Ex Parte Plummer: Admn 16 Oct 1998

The test of whether an order should be made lifting the restriction on the naming of youths in criminal proceedings is whether there are good reasons for naming them. There is no requirement for ‘rare and exceptional’ qualification. Here no direct harm would be caused.

Times 26-Oct-1998
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39 44
England and Wales

Media, Criminal Practice, Children

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.139091

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 released but only contacted in 1996 in relation to the outstanding confiscation order. There was a ‘wholly unexplained period of three years’ delay’ in enforcement. He submitted that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process on the grounds of this delay.
Held: Earlier authorities were to be distinguished. Here, it was for the defendant to take positive steps to make payment, not for the prosecutor to pursue him. Parliament had not intended drug traffickers to escape for delay.

Brooke LJ and Sedley J
[1998] EWHC Admin 960
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 3-Jun-1992
The jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings on the ground of delay is exceptional, even where the delay was unjustifiable, and a stay should rarely be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution, and should . .
Cited – Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica PC 1985
The appellant had been sentenced to life for firearms offences. After a successfully appeal, a retrial was ordered. More than two years had passed, after a previous attempt failed for absent witnesses.
Held: Referred to the US decision in . .
Cited – Regina v Oxford City Justices, ex parte Smith QBD 1982
The defendant had given a positive breath test. The laboratory test showed a urine/alcohol proportion above the prescribed limit. He was warned that proceedings were possible. The summons was issued within the six months’ period prescribed by the . .
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 – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.139081

Grant and Others v Regina: CACD 20 Nov 2015

The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. They alleged that there had been material non-disclosure of evidence. In particular, officers were said to have obtained o-operation from a defendant on the basis of a promise that the judge would be so informed, but that had been held back by police officers even from the prosecution legal team.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst there was impropriety, it was not of itself sufficient to undermine the conviction.

Macur DBE LJ, Cooke J, Cutts HHJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1815
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AXN v The Queen CACD 27-May-2016
The defendant argued that greater note should have been taken on his sentencing to allow for the assistance he had given to the police after his arrest.
Held: The current accepted practice is that the text of the letter from the police to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554895