Category: Criminal Practice

Neill, Regina v: CACD 17 Dec 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. He complained of the judge’s conduct of the trial. He complained of the over-extensive rehearsal of parts of the evidence.
Held: The appeal failed. The rehearsal of the evidence had indeed been overlong: ‘This sort of summing-up we had hoped was a thing of the past. This court has said over and over again, that the purpose of a summing-up is to direct the jury, assist it in reaching a fair resolution of the issues. A long recitation of the evidence from one witness to the next has the opposite effect.’ He had then given what was almost a speech for the prosecution. However, those defects were not sufficient to cast doubt on the verdict.

Moses LJ, Cranston, Lang JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 2617
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535475

Regina v Oliva: CCA 18 May 1965

The defendant appealed his conviction for wounding one Brian Rutledge with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Both the victim, Mr Rutledge, and also a man named Hampden gave evidence at the committal proceedings and their names appeared on the back of the indictment. At a later stage, both Rutledge and Hampden made statements withdrawing their original evidence against the accused. At the trial the prosecution refused to call either Rutledge or Hampden.
Held: The prosecution had exercised their discretion rightly in refusing to call the witnesses since they were ‘abundantly entitled to form the view that, to say the very least, these two witnesses were wholly unreliable and that the interests of justice would not be furthered by calling such witnesses.’ and ‘Accordingly, as it seems to this court, the principles are plain. The prosecution must of course have in court the witnesses whose names are on the back of the indictment, that there is a wide discretion in the prosecution whether they should call them either calling and examining them, or calling and tendering them for cross examination.
The prosecution do not, of course, put forward every witness as a witness of truth, but where the witness’s evidence is capable of belief, then it is their duty, well recognised, that he should be called, even though the evidence that he is going to give is inconsistent with the case sought to be proved. Their discretion must be exercised in a manner which is calculated to further the interest of justice, and at the same time be fair to the defence. If the prosecution appear to be exercising that discretion improperly, it is open to the judge of trial to interfere and in his discretion in turn to invite the prosecution to call a particular witness, and, if they refuse, there is the ultimate sanction in the judge himself calling that witness.’

Lord Chief Justice Parker
[1965] 1 WLR 1028, [1965] 49 Crim App Reps 298
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Seneviratne v Rex PC 1936
The Board looked at the duty if any on a prosecutor to call witnesses: ‘Their Lordships do not desire to lay down any rules to fetter discretion on a matter such as this which is so dependent on the particular circumstances of each case. Still less . .
Cited – Adel Muhammed el Dabbah v Attorney General for Palestine PC 1944
The Board looked at the discretion which lay with a prosecutor as to whether to call witnesses.
Held: The discretion, in the first instance at any rate, rested with the prosecution: ‘And the court will not interfere with the exercise of that . .

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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.242112

Rex v Harris: 1927

A prosecutor has no obligation to call a witness whose evidence he does not consider to be material.

[1927] 2 KB 587
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.242111

Findlay v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Feb 1997

The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had the power in prescribed circumstances to dissolve the court-martial either before or during the trial. The Strasbourg Court noted that all members of the court-martial fell within the chain of command of the Convening Officer with the result that the applicant’s doubts about the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality could be objectively justified.
Held: The procedures are unfair. The convening officer has too much influence over the court. For a Tribunal to be impartial and independent ‘it must also be impartial for an objective viewpoint, that is it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect.’ There were fundamental flaws in the court-martial system and ‘Nor could the defects referred to above be corrected by any subsequent review of proceedings. Since the applicant’s hearing was concerned with serious charges classified as ‘criminal’ under both domestic and Convention law, he was entitled to a first instance tribunal which fully met with the requirements of Article 6 (1)’.

Times 27-Feb-1997, 110/1995/616/706, 22107/93, (1997) 24 EHRR 221, [1997] ECHR 8, [2011] ECHR 1668
Worldlii, Bailii
Army Act 1955, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Williams; Regina v Saunby; Regina v Ashby; Regina v Schofield; Regina v Marsh, Regina v Webb; Regina v Leese; Regina v Dodds; Regina v Clarkson; Regina v English CMAC 30-Jul-2001
The appellants variously claimed their convictions should be set aside because the court which had heard their cases was not independent and impartial. They alleged in particular that questions of military discipline and morale would affect the . .
Approved – Regina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .
Cited – PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
Cited – Cooper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction)
The claimant had been dismissed from the RAF after a court martial. He complained that the tribunal was not independent, and that his trial was unfair.
Cited – Grieves v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The claimant had been dismissed from the Royal Navy after a court martial. He . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – McGonnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-2000
The applicant owned land in the parish of St Martin’s in Guernsey. He made a number of applications for planning permission for residential use, but they were all rejected. In about 1986 he moved into a converted packing shed on his land. In 1988 a . .
Cited – Haase, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Adjudicator and Another CA 14-Oct-2008
The appellant complained that as a prisoner he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for refusing to co-operate with drugs tests. He said that he had not been informed that there would be a penalty if he did not comply. He now complained that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.165486

De Cubber v Belgium: ECHR 26 Oct 1984

The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that there had been no breach of Article 6(1) was the submission that there was a right of appeal to an appellate courts which was accepted to be impartial; that the Belgian Court of Cassation had rightly held that the court hearing the case at first instance did not have to satisfy the requirements of Article 6(1), provided that the accused was able to appeal to a court that offered all the guarantees stipulated by Article 6(1) and was able to review all questions of fact and law.
Held: The possibility of a fair trial on an appeal is not alone sufficient to compensate for a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the primary decision-maker. The contentions advanced by Belgium were rejected: ‘The thrust of the plea summarised above is that the proceedings before the Oudenaarde court fell outside the ambit of Article 6(1). At first sight, this plea contains an element of paradox. Article 6 (1) concerns primarily courts of first instance; it does not require the existence of courts of further instance. It is true that the fundamental guarantees, including impartiality, must also be provided by any courts of appeal or courts of cassation which a Contracting State may have chosen to set up. However, even when this is the case it does not follow that the lower courts do not have to provide the required guarantees. Such a result would be at variance with the intention underlying the creation of several levels of courts, namely, to reinforce the protection afforded to litigants. . . . At the hearings, the Commission’s Delegate and the applicant’s lawyer raised a further question, concerning not the applicability of Article 6 (1) but rather its application to the particular facts: had not the ‘subsequent intervention’ of the Ghent Court of Appeal ‘made good the wrong’ or ‘purged’ the first instance proceedings of the ‘defect’ that vitiated them? . . . The possibility certainly exists that a higher or the highest court might, in some circumstances, make reparation for an initial violation of one of the Convention’s provisions: this is precisely the reason for the existence of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, contained in Article 26. Thus the Adolf judgment of 26 March 1982 noted that the Austrian Supreme Court had ‘cleared . . of any finding of guilt’ an applicant in respect of whom a District Court had not respected the principle of presumption of innocence laid down by Article 6(2).
The circumstances of the present case, however, were different. The particular defect in question did not bear solely upon the conduct of the first instance proceedings: its source being the very composition of the Oudenaarde criminal court, the defect concerned matters of internal organisation, and the Court of Appeal did not cure that defect since it did not quash on that ground the judgment of 29 June 1979 in its entirety’.

9186/80, (1985) 7 EHRR 236, [1984] ECHR 14, [1987] ECHR 22, [1984] EHRR 236, (1987) 13 EHRR 422
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks ChD 15-May-2003
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.164997

Regina v Heath: CACD 1 Feb 1994

The defendant complained that the judge had wrongly admitted details of past spent convictions. The judge had told the jury ‘entirely to ignore them as far as this case is concerned’.
Held: The convictions were ‘so lacking in significance to the extent that the appellant should be regarded as a man of good character’ and a good character direction pace Vye was required. The conviction was quashed.
The judge was to give good character directions in the set form where the defendant had spent convictions.

Russell LJ, Lord Taylor CJ
Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 10-Feb-1994, [1994] Crim LR 205
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Vye etc CACD 7-Apr-1993
Detailed guidance was given on good character directions, as to how and when they should be given, but: ‘Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two respects in which good character may be relevant, ie credibility and propensity, this . .

Cited by:
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – GAI v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2012
The defendant’s appeal based on the absence of a good character direction had succeeded. The court now gave its reasons.
Held: After reviewing the authorities, the appeal succeeded: ‘the learned judge was wrong to find that the fact that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.86839

Bills of Advocate By Harun Akhtar and Nothers: HCJ 23 Jul 2014

The appellants, in separate bills of advocation, made complaint against decisions of the Sheriff at Perth, whereby the said sheriff, when the indictment called for trial in the sitting to which it had been appointed, ex proprio motu adjourned the trial diet, and thereafter granted a motion by the procurator fiscal depute for an extension of time in terms of section 65(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Lord Eassie, Lord Menzies, Lady Clark of Calton
[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 80
Bailii
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 65(3)

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535260

Regina v Sharp (Colin): HL 1988

The defendant had been seen fleeing the area of a crime. Some days later he volunteered a statement admitting his presence in the area, but providing an innocent explanation. He did not give evidence at trial. His statement was put in by the prosecution, but the judge directed the jury that they could rely upon the admission but the parts where he gave an excuse were not evidence. He appealed.
Held: The jury must be given comprehensible directions. They could not make sense of part only of the statement. The whole evidence should be considered as evidence, and the judge could allow the jurirs to attach different weights to different parts, and he could point out the failure of the defendant to submit to cross examination.
‘It is only if the jury think that the facts set out by way of excuse or explanation might be true that any doubt is cast upon the admission . . ‘
‘Evidence contained in a confession is however an exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible. The justification for the adoption of the exception was presumably that, provided the accused had not been subjected to any improper pressure, it was so unlikely that he would confess to a crime he had not committed that it was safe to rely upon the truth of what he said. This exception became extended to include not only a full confession to the crime but also a partial confession in which the accused admitted some matter that required to be established if the crime alleged was to be proved against him. …
The difference in the authorities centres upon the status to be attached to those parts of a mixed statement that excuse or explain an admission and are intended to show that the admission does not bear the inference of guilt it might otherwise attract: for example, ‘I admit that I stabbed him but he was about to shoot me,’ or, as in this appeal, ‘I admit I was at the scene of the burglary but I was looking for something that had fallen off my car.’ All the authorities agree that it would be unfair to admit the admission without admitting the explanation and the only question is how best to help the jury evaluate the accused’s statement. The view expressed in Duncan, 73 Cr App R 359 is that the whole statement should be left to the jury as evidence of the facts but that attention should be drawn, when appropriate, to the different weight they might think it right to attach to the admission as opposed to the explanation or excuses. The other view, which I might refer to as the ‘purist’ approach, is that, as an exculpatory statement is never evidence of the facts it relates, the jury should be directed that the excuse or explanation is only admitted to show the context in which the admission was made and they must not regard the excuse or explanation as evidence of its truth.’ (Lord Havers)
and: ‘My Lords, the weight of authority and common sense lead me to prefer the direction to the jury formulated in Duncan, 73 Cr App R 359 to an attempt to deal differently with the different parts of a mixed statement. How can a jury fairly evaluate the facts in the admission unless they can evaluate the facts in the excuse or explanation? It is only if the jury think that the facts set out by way of excuse or explanation might be true that any doubt is cast on the admission, and it is surely only because the excuse or explanation might be true that it is thought fair that it should be considered by the jury. I agree with Lawton LJ that a jury will make little of the direction that attempts to draw a distinction between evidence which is evidence of facts and evidence in the same statement which whilst not being evidence of facts is nevertheless evidentiary material of which they may make use in evaluating evidence which is evidence of the facts. One only has to write out the foregoing sentence to see the confusion it engenders.’
Lord Havers went on to amend and answer in the affirmative the question before the court: ‘where a statement made to a person out of court by a defendant contains both admissions and self exculpatory parts do the exculpatory parts constitute evidence of the truth of the facts alleged therein?’

Lord Havers
[1988] 86 Cr App R 274, [1988] 1 WLR 7, [1988] 1 All ER 65, [1988] Crim LR 303
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Duncan CACD 1981
Where a defendant has not given evidence the whole of a ‘mixed’ statement, one which includes matter which is incriminating and also matter which is exculpatory, should be admitted in evidence, if it is to be admitted at all. Nevertheless, the court . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Ian Cauldero and Nigill Francois v The State PC 28-Sep-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They complained at to the judge’s direction as to a statement and as to intent, where they had said that the gun had been wrestled . .
Cited – Shirley, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2013
The defendant had been convicted of several very serious sexual and physical assaults and rapes. He appealed against his conviction, saying that the judge had not fairly represented his defence to the jury. He said that the complainant had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.194987

Pullar v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jun 1996

The applicant P was an elected councillor. He faced a charge of corruption, being said to have have offered, for reward, to support a planning application made by M, a partner in a firm of architects, and C, a partner in a firm of quantity surveyors. He was tried before a sheriff and a jury in July 1992. M and C were the leading prosecution witnesses. Among the jurors summoned to the trial was F, a junior employee of M’s firm who had received notice of dismissal on grounds of redundancy shortly before the trial began. F informed the clerk of the court of his employment in M’s firm, but the clerk, having ascertained that F did not know P and was ignorant of the facts, took no action and did not inform the sheriff or the procurator fiscal or defending lawyers. M, on later seeing F sitting as a juror, told the clerk of his connection with F, but the clerk again took no action and informed no one. P was convicted. His lawyers learned of the connection between F and M only after the trial, and appealed to the High Court of Justiciary. That court had held that the clerk ought to have informed the sheriff, and if he had F would probably have been excused, but that a mere suspicion of bias was insufficient to justify quashing a verdict, and it was necessary to prove that a miscarriage of justice had actually occurred. So the appeal failed. The Commission unanimously found a breach of article 6(1) of the Convention: in the circumstances of the case the impartiality of the jury which convicted P was capable of appearing open to doubt and P’s fears in this regard could be considered as objectively justified.
Held: By a bare majority of 5-4, there had been no violation. Knowledge of a person did not necessarily lead to prejudice in his favour, and that it had to be decided whether the familiarity in question was of such a nature and degree as to indicate a lack of impartiality on the part of the tribunal. F had not worked on the project giving rise to the prosecution, and it was not clear that an objective observer would conclude that F, having just received notice of redundancy, would be more inclined to believe M rather than the witnesses for the defence. The presence of the complainant’s employee on the jury did not stop the jury being impartial and the trial fair. The court recognised the several features of jury trial in Britain which help to guarantee the objective impartiality of the jury.
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d

Times 24-Jun-1996, [1996] 22 ECHR 391, 22399/93, [1996] ECHR 23
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Cheryl Little, (HMA v Anstruther) ScSf 21-Sep-2001
An order was made against a witness for prevarication. The order was challenged on the basis that she had not had a fair trial, not having a hearing before an independent tribunal. The same judge had acted as witness prosecutor and judge and jury. . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.165425

Queen v Beckford and Another: PC 30 Jun 1993

The court rehearsed the Australian cases on the dangers of relying upon identification evidence, the need for proper jury directions, and the dangers of a court of appeal maintaining a conviction where an inadequate direction had been given relying upon other evidence in the case. It was still the judge’s duty to give a Turnbull warning even if the defence was not relying on the possibility of mistake, the thrust of the defence simply being to challenge the veracity of the witness. A direction was given on the award of costs of an applicant to the Privy Council.

Times 30-Jun-1993, (1993) 97 Cr App R 409
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Domican v The Queen 1992
(Australia) Mason CJ said: ‘A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Bertrand Roberts and Roland Roberts v The State PC 15-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellants had been convicted of murder and their capital sentences commuted. They now sought to challenge the convictions as to the admission of and directions given on the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.89843

Gray v Germany: ECHR 22 May 2014

ECHR Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Criminal proceedings in Germany against German doctor responsible for a patient’s death in the United Kingdom: no violation
Facts – The applicants’ father died in his home in the United Kingdom as a result of medical malpractice by a German doctor who had been recruited by a private agency to work for the British National Health Service. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the doctor in the United Kingdom. Following a request by the British prosecution authorities for legal assistance, the German authorities also initiated criminal proceedings in Germany, which resulted in the doctor’s conviction for having negligently caused the father’s death. In view of the German proceedings, the German authorities did not execute the European Arrest Warrant issued against the doctor in the United Kingdom and refused to extradite him. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings brought against the doctor in the United Kingdom had to be discontinued.
Law – Article 2 (procedural aspect): The criminal proceedings conducted in Germany had enabled the investigative authorities to determine the cause of death and establish the doctor’s responsibility therefor. In view of the available evidence taken as a whole, the prosecution authorities’ decision to apply for the doctor’s conviction in summary proceedings without a main hearing had been justified.
As to the applicants’ allegations that they had not been sufficiently involved in the German proceedings, the Court noted that under the German rules of criminal procedure the prosecution authorities were not obliged to inform the applicants on their own initiative about the institution or progress of the proceedings. In the Court’s view, in the instant case such an obligation did not follow from the procedural requirements inherent in Article 2 – 1 of the Convention either. Although in situations where the responsibility of State agents in connection with a death was at stake, Article 2 – 1 required that the next of kin be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests, in contrast the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 in the sphere of medical negligence did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy so that it may therefore be arguable whether and to what extent the applicants’ involvement as next of kin was required where, as in the applicants’ case, the prosecution authorities had recourse to such a remedy on their own initiative. In any event, the applicants had been involved in the criminal proceedings against the doctor. Since the circumstances of the case had been sufficiently established in the course of the investigative proceedings, their participation at any main hearing could not have further contributed to the trial court’s assessment of the case. Indeed, even if a hearing had been scheduled the applicants would not have had the right to contest the trial court’s judgment with the objective of a heavier penalty being imposed. There was, therefore, nothing to establish that the legitimate interests of the deceased’s next of kin were not respected in the domestic proceedings.
In reality, the applicants’ complaint was that the doctor was convicted in Germany and not in the United Kingdom, where he may have faced a heavier penalty. The German authorities had, however, been obliged to institute criminal proceedings by operation of domestic law once they had learned of his involvement in the events surrounding the death and consequently had a basis under the relevant domestic and international law for their decision not to extradite him. The procedural guarantees enshrined in Article 2 do not entail a right or an obligation that a particular sentence be imposed on a prosecuted third party under the domestic law of a specific State.
In addition to the criminal proceedings, investigations regarding the doctor’s fitness to practice had also been conducted by the German authorities and the applicants had been granted an opportunity to provide further information. As a consequence of the disciplinary proceedings, the doctor had been reprimanded and fined.
Accordingly, the German authorities had provided for effective remedies with a view to determining the cause of the father’s death and the doctor’s responsibility for it. There was nothing to establish that the criminal investigations and proceedings instituted on the initiative of the German authorities in relation to the death had fallen short of the procedural guarantees inherent in Article 2-1.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

49278/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 503, 49278/09 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 712
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Health Professions

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533843

Council v Hamas (Judgment): ECJ 23 Nov 2021

Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Fight against terrorism – Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities – Freezing of funds – Common Position 2001/931/CFSP – Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 – Continued inclusion of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts – Statement of individual reasons notified to the organisation set out in a separate document from that containing a general statement of reasons – Authentication of the statement of individual reasons – Article 297(2) TFEU

C-833/19, [2021] EUECJ C-833/19P
Bailii
European

Criminal Practice, Banking

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.670011

CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc: CA 1987

Persons other than the Attorney General do not have standing to enforce, through a civil court, the observance of the criminal law as such. However, Sir Denys Buckley considered that such a claim might be maintained as a representative action because, as in Duke of Bedford: ‘the plaintiffs, and all the persons whom they purport to represent, have statutory rights of the same character under the Copyright Act 1956, which the action is designed to protect from infringement resulting from the conduct of the defendants which is complained of. They share, in my judgment, a common interest and a common grievance, such as Lord Macnaghten had in mind. The relief which is primarily claimed is injunctive in a form which would benefit the plaintiffs and all whom they purport to represent in the same way, that is to say, by protecting them from the risk of infringements incited by the defendants.’

Nicholls LJ, Sir Denys Buckley
[1988] Ch 61, [1987] RPC 42
Copyright Act 1956
Citing:
Cited – Duke of Bedford v Ellis HL 10-Dec-1900
Ellis and five others sued on behalf of themselves and all other growers of fruit, flowers, vegetables, roots or herbs to enforce rights conferred on them by the Covent Garden Act 1828 against the Duke of Bedford as the owner of the market. The Duke . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Cited – Bermuda Cablevision Limited and others v Colica Trust Company Limited PC 6-Oct-1997
(Bermuda) An alternative remedy to winding up is available to a shareholder where oppressive conduct is alleged, though the main thrust is that the conduct is unlawful. . .
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Another v British Airways Plc ChD 8-Apr-2009
The claim was for damages after alleged price fixing by the defendants. The claimants sought to recover for themselves and as representatives of others who had similarly suffered. The defendants sought that the representative element of the claim be . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another AdCt 25-Jun-2012
The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.392981

Regina v Gough (Robert): HL 1993

The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with that brother to commit burglaries. The juror had sworn an affidavit that she had not not known of the connection.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The House set out the test for bias. The test for bias in a juror where apparent bias was alleged, was whether there was a real danger that the defendant had been denied a fair trial.
Lord Woolf said: ‘It must be remembered that except in the rare case where actual bias is alleged, the court is not concerned to investigate whether or not bias has been established. Whether it is a judge, a member of the jury, justices or their clerk, who is alleged to be biased, the courts do not regard it as being desirable or useful to inquire into the individual’s state of mind. It is not desirable because of the confidential nature of the judicial decision making process. It is not useful because the courts have long recognised that bias operates in such an insidious manner that the person alleged to be biased may be quite unconscious of its effect.
It is because the court in the majority of cases does not inquire whether actual bias exists that the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done applies. When considering whether there is a real danger of injustice, the court gives effect to the maxim, but does so by examining all the material available and giving its conclusion on that material. If the court having done so is satisfied there is no danger of the alleged bias having created injustice, then the application to quash the decision should be dismissed. This, therefore, should have been the result in the Sussex Justices case if Lord Hewart C.J’s remarks are to be taken at face value and are to be treated as a finding, and not merely an assumption, that there was no danger of the justices’ decision being contaminated by the possible bias of the clerk.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley said that was meant by bias was extraneous prejudice and predilection: ‘it possible, and desirable, that the same test should be applicable in all cases of apparent bias, whether concerned with justices or members of other inferior tribunals, or with jurors, or with arbitrators. Likewise I consider that, in cases concerned with jurors, the same test should be applied by a judge to whose attention the possibility of bias on the part of a juror has been drawn in the course of a trial, and by the Court of Appeal when it considers such a question on appeal. Furthermore, I think it unnecessary, in formulating the appropriate test, to require that the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because the court in cases such as these personifies the reasonable man; and in any event the court has first to ascertain the relevant circumstances from the available evidence, knowledge of which would not necessarily be available to an observer in court at the relevant time. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I prefer to state the test in terms of real danger rather than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of possibility rather than probability of bias. Accordingly, having ascertained the relevant circumstances, the court should ask itself whether, having regard to those circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in question, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him; ‘
‘ A layman might well wonder why the function of a court in cases such as these should not simply be to conduct an inquiry into the question whether the tribunal was in fact biased. After all it is alleged that, for example, a justice or a juryman was biased, i.e. that he was motivated by a desire unfairly to favour one side or to disfavour the other. Why does the court not simply decide whether that was in fact the case? The answer, as always, is that it is more complicated than that. First of all, there are difficulties about exploring the actual state of mind of a justice or juryman. In the case of both, such an inquiry has been thought to be undesirable: and in the case of the juryman in particular, there has long been an inhibition against, so to speak, entering the jury room and finding out what any particular juryman actually thought at the time of decision. But there is also the simple fact that bias is such an insidious thing that, even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias.’ and ‘ the approach of the law has been (save on the very rare occasion where actual bias is proved) to look at the relevant circumstances and to consider whether there is such a degree of possibility of bias that the decision in question should not be allowed to stand.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Woolf
Independent 26-May-1993, Times 24-May-1993, [1993] AC 646, [1993] 2 All ER 727, [1993] UKHL 1, [1993] 97 Cr App R 188, [1993] 2 WLR 883
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Gough CACD 2-Jun-1992
A juror had lived next door to a party to the burglary alleged against the defendant. The defendant alleged bias. The juror said she had been unaware of the connection.
Held: The question of whether there had been bias in a jury trial is . .
Cited – Rex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy KBD 9-Nov-1923
Clerk wrongly retired with Justices
There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of . .
Cited – Regina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association 1960
Even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by a bias. Devlin LJ said: ‘Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and . .
Cited – Regina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce QBD 1954
The applicant had been convicted by the Justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938 which had been brought under the authority of the Health Committee of the Cornwall County Council. The Clerk to the Justices was a councillor . .
Cited – Regina v Spencer; Regina v Smails HL 24-Jul-1986
The defendants were nurses employed at Rampton secure hospital accused of assaults on patients. The witnesses against them had been inmates. They complained that the judge had failed to direct the jurors about the dangers of relying upon their . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Francois Pierre Marcellin Thoron CACD 30-Jul-2001
The appellant had been convicted that as a haulage contractor he had conspired with his drivers to cause them to drive beyond the permitted hours, and in other ways contrary to their safety. He argued it was a misuse of the Act to ally it with the . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
Modified – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Cited – Cairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
Explained – Regina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft CA 16-Jun-1994
A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is . .
Cited – Regina v Stipendiary Magistrate for Norfolk ex parte Dean Taylor Admn 1-Jul-1997
The prosecutor applied ex parte to the magistrate for an order that he need not disclose certain material to the defendant. Though the hearing was inter partes, the content of the protected material was not shown to the defendant’s solciitor. . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Regina on the Application of Mahfouz v The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council CA 5-Mar-2004
The doctor requested members of the disciplinary tribunal to recuse themselves when, after the first day of the hearing they saw prejudicial material in newspapers which material was not in evidence. They had further declined to allow an adjournment . .
Doubted – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
Cited – Meerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Cited – Webb and Hay v The Queen 30-Jun-1994
(Australia) Criminal Law – Jury – Impartiality – Murder trial – Juror giving flowers to victim’s mother – Whether juror or jury to be discharged Appropriate test – Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of . .
Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Cited – Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Cited – Morrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Julian Branco Admn 24-Oct-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused. . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Cited – Regina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
Cited – Regina v KS CACD 17-Nov-2009
The jury had been discharged by the judge after finding jury tampering, and he decided to continue alone. The jury had not known of the earlier convictions of others involved in the alleged conspiracy, but the judge did and he had made reference to . .
Cited – Regina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
Cited – Kaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
Cited – Abegaze v IPR Technical Development Ltd EAT 2-Sep-1998
The court was asked whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point of law. The claimant had requested witness orders, but the tribunal had refused them. Five of the six requested attended as defentant’s witnesses.
Held: The Industrial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.183296

S, Regina v: CACD 6 Mar 2006

The court restated the principles applying a stay for abuse of process occasioned by delay. Rose VP LJ said: , the correct approach for a judge to whom an application for a stay for abuse of process on the ground of delay is made, is to bear in mind the following principles:
(i) Even where delay is unjustifiable, a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule;
(ii) Where there is no fault on the part of the complainant or the prosecution, it will be very rare for a stay to be granted;
(iii) No stay should be granted in the absence of serious prejudice to the defence so that no fair trial can be held;
(iv) When assessing possible serious prejudice, the judge should bear in mind his or her power to regulate the admissibility of evidence and that the trial process itself should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury for their consideration in accordance with appropriate direction from the judge;
(v) If, having considered all these factors, a judge’s assessment is that a fair trial will be possible, a stay should not be granted.’

Rose VP LJ, Stanley Burnton, Hedley JJ
[2006] 2 Cr App R 23, 170 JP 434, [2007] Crim LR 296, (2006) 170 JP 434, [2006] EWCA Crim 756
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
re-stated. – 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 – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.428552

Regina v Taylor: 1997

[1997] Crim LR 649
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 20
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Achogbuo, Regina v CACD 19-Mar-2014
The Court considered a renewed application for leave to appeal which the Registrar had considered to be without merit and was referred under section 20 of the 1968 Act.
Held: The reference had been properly made. The application for extension . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.524026

Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another: QBD 8 Feb 2007

The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of probabilities’, that the matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct occurred. The court had a discretion under 266(3) not to make an order where it would be unfair or interfere with a human right. ‘any significant asset of Mr Olupitan was obtained by or was the proceeds of his dishonest acquisitive criminal conduct and is recoverable property.’

Langley J
[2007] EWHC 162 (QB)
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Director of Assets Recovery Agency and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Green and others Admn 16-Dec-2005
The defendant challenged the making of civil orders for recovery of what were alleged to be the proceeds of crime. They complained that no specific offence had been made out. The court was asked, as a preliminary issue: ‘Whether a claim for civil . .
See Also – Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another 2006
The Respondents applied to strike out the claim under the Act on grounds including that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and was an abuse of process.
Held: The application was refused. . .
Cited – Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung PC 1987
Textile export quotas (a permission to export textiles) which were surplus to the exporter’s requirements, which could be bought and sold under the apprpriate Hong Kong legislation, may be ‘property’ for the purposes of the law of theft. . .
Cited – Regina v Williams (Jacqueline) and Crick CACD 30-Jul-1993
The defendant was accused of having obtained by deception a mortgage advance, the amount having been paid by electronic transfer.
Held: The sum of money represented by a figure in a bank account was not fully property for the purposes of the . .
Cited – Regina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Regina v L,G,Q and M 2004
. .
Cited – Regina v El-Kurd CACD 2001
The defendants had been charged with four conspiracies, each of which was indicted as a conspiracy to commit offences under the 1994 Act on the one hand and under the 1988 Act on the other. The crown accepted that for a conviction for the laundering . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.248399

Regina v Michael: QBD 1976

There has been a failure on the part of the trial judge to include costs incurred at a committal hearing in an order for costs which was made in favour of an accused who had been acquitted. It had plainly been the intention of the trial judge to include such costs in the order which he made. Upon application to that judge to amend that order, as pronounced, the application was granted.
Held: The Crown Court as a court of record has an inherent jurisdiction, under the slip rule, to correct an order which was drawn up in a way which did not reflect what the judge had ordered in open court.

Judge Rubin
[1976] QB 414
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Regina v Saville CACD 24-Jan-1980
The Crown Court had made a criminal bankruptcy order in the sum of andpound;5,000 but failed to identify how that was to be distributed between the offences. The judge subsequently, but after the 28 day period provided by section 11(2) of the 1971 . .
Cited – Norman and Others, Regina v CACD 20-Jul-2006
The defendant said that the judge in setting his sentence had failed correctly to identify the time he had spent in custody awaiting trial, and which would act as time served.
Held: The defendants were entitled to a direction. If the time for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244714

Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court: QBD 4 Jul 2007

The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day and could not correct his mistake, and the prosecution delayed the appeal beyond the time limit. They now asked the divisional court to quash the sentence to allow him to be resentenced.
Held: To found a jurisdiction to quash the order, the prosecution had to establish that the matter related to a trial on indictment. The court had no such jurisdiction in this case, and could only resentence if requested by the defendant, who made no such request. The sentence was not itself an nullity and must be left to stand.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Griffith Williams J
Times 16-Jul-2007, [2007] EWHC 1798 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 2886
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 227
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council QBD 30-Apr-1999
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction. . .
Cited – Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Admn 27-Nov-2001
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be . .
Cited – Reynolds and Others, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The court considered how it could marry the law against the increase of penaties on appeal with the possible need to correct a judge’s error in sentencing. It summarised the provisions for sentencing for specified offences: ‘[The] regime requires . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.254620

Director of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield Crown Court and Others: Admn 20 Jun 2014

The defendant had been one of three drivers in a serious accident. On his acquittal, the judge ordered payment of his costs saying that the DPP had acted improperly in choosing only to prosecute the defendant. The DPP challenged his right to make the order.

Sir John Thomas LCJ, Elias LJ, Mitting J
[2014] EWHC 2014 (Admin)
Bailii
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526968

CA v Public Prosecution Service (No 2): QBNI 2 Apr 2014

The applicant is the subject of an allegation of having inflicted grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (‘OAPA’). The allegations relate to an incident that occurred in 2012 when she was 16. During the course of 2013 she challenged a Public Prosecution Service (‘PPS’) conclusion that the allegation was not suitable for diversionary disposal, as an alternative to prosecution, as provided for by the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

Morgan LCJ and Coghlin LJ
[2014] NIQB 44
Bailii

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526645

Regina v Priestley: CACD 1965

(Note) Sachs LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘oppression’ in the context of a police interview, saying: ‘this word, in the context of the principles under consideration, imports something which tends to sap and has sapped that free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary . . whether or not there is oppression in an individual case depends upon many elements . . they include such things a the length of time of interviewing between periods of questioning, whether the accused person had been given proper refreshment or not and the characteristics of the person who makes the statement. What may be oppressive as regards a child, an invalid or an old man, or somebody inexperienced in the ways of the world may turn out not to be oppressive when one finds that the accused person is of tough character and an experienced man of the world.’
and ‘the courts are not concerned with ascertaining the precise motive of a particular statement. The question before them is whether the prosecution have shown the statement to be voluntary, whatever the motive may be, and that is always the point to which all arguments must return. To solve it, the court has to look to the questions which I have already mentioned. First, was there in fact something which could properly be styled or might well be oppression? Secondly, did whatever happened in the way of oppression or likely oppression induce the statement in question?’

Sachs LJ
(1965) 51 Cr App R 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.464673

Regina v Rennie: CACD 1982

In the course of an interrogation, the detective sergeant, after telling the appellant the gist of the information already possessed by the police, said ‘Do me a favour, this was a joint operation by your family to defraud the bank, wasn’t it?’ and the appellant replied ‘No, don’t bring the rest of the family into this, it was my fault. I persuaded Jacqueline to get involved’.
Held: The confession was admitted. The judge should a common-sense approach when testing the voluntariness of any challenged confession. Any hope the appellant might have had that the police would cease their inquiries into the part played by the appellant’s mother was self generated. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘The law is as stated by Lord Sumner in Ibrahim -v- The King (1914) AC 599), ‘no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority’ or, (as must now be added) by oppression.’
and ‘The question whether the confession had been shown to be voluntary raised an issue of fact. The evidence material to this issue consisted of (i) the evidence of the officer as to what was said and done at the interview, both by himself and by the appellant, (ii) the evidence of the appellant on the same matters, and (iii) the evidence of the appellant as to his motives for making the confession. But the speculations of the officer as to the motives of the appellant were not admissible in evidence.’

Lord Lane CJ
(1982) 74 Cr App R 20, [1982] 1 WLR 509, [1982] 1 All ER 424
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ping Lin PC 1976
The Board was asked whether a statement by the defendant was shown to be voluntary.
Held: A trial Judge faced by the problem should approach the task in a common sense way and should ask himself whether the prosecution had proved that the . .
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.464674

ex parte HTV Cymru (Wales) Ltd: 2002

The court granted an injunction to restrain the media from interviewing witnesses during the course of a criminal trial, and until all the evidence was complete. One witness would have to be recalled, and others might be recalled, and accordingly held that the proposed interviews would constitute a contempt of court pursuant to ss.1 and 2 of the 1981 Act.
Aikens J said: ‘Of course the power of the Crown Court to grant injunctions is strictly limited to the specific matters that are set out in section 45(4). There is no general power in the Crown Court to grant injunctions. But I am satisfied that the Crown Court has the power to grant an injunction to restrain a threatened contempt of court in relation to a matter that is before the Crown Court in question.’

Aikens J
[2002] EMLR 11, [2002] EMLR 184
Supreme Court Act 198145(4), Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
Cited – Regina v Croydon Crown Court ex parte Trinity Mirror Plc; In re Trinity Mirror plc CACD 1-Feb-2008
An order had been made protecting the identity of a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children. The order was made in the interests of his own children, although they had been neither witnesses in the proceedings against . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.377203

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ping Lin: PC 1976

The Board was asked whether a statement by the defendant was shown to be voluntary.
Held: A trial Judge faced by the problem should approach the task in a common sense way and should ask himself whether the prosecution had proved that the contested statement was voluntary in the sense that it was not obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage excited or held out by a person in authority. It is not necessary, before a statement is held to be inadmissible because not shown to have been voluntary, that it should be thought or held that there was impropriety in the conduct of the person to whom the statement was made. What has to be considered is whether a statement is shown to have been voluntary rather than one brought about in one of the ways referred to.
The Committee described the courts abhorrence of the admission of evidence obtained by oppression: ‘By the judiciary, though it ought not to be extended, it must by no means be whittled down. It bears, it is true, all the marks of its origin at a time when the savage code of the eighteenth century was in full force. At that time almost every serious crime was punishable by death or transportation. The law enforcement officers formed no disciplined police force and were not subject to effective control by the central government, watch committees or an inspectorate. There was no legal aid. There was no system of appeal. To crown it all the accused was unable to give evidence on his own behalf and was therefore largely at the mercy of any evidence, either perjured or oppressively obtained, that might be brought against him. The judiciary were therefore compelled to devise artificial rules designed to protect him against dangers now avoided by other and more rational means. Nevertheless, the rule has survived into the twentieth century, not only unmodified but developed, and only Parliament can modify it now from the form in which it was given classical expression by Lord Sumner.’

Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
[1976] AC 574
Citing:
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

Cited by:
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Explained – Regina v Rennie CACD 1982
In the course of an interrogation, the detective sergeant, after telling the appellant the gist of the information already possessed by the police, said ‘Do me a favour, this was a joint operation by your family to defraud the bank, wasn’t it?’ and . .
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.199966

Ibrahim v The King: PC 6 Mar 1914

(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by a senior officer, and admitted the act. He appealed on the basis that the admission was not voluntary, having being made to an officer with authority over him, and should not have been admitted.
Held: The committee was not inclined to enunciate a general rule for admissibility of evidence in such circumstances, this is a matter for the Court of Criminal Appeal. It could only say that any defect must be such as to deprive the accused of a fair trial, before a decision could be set aside. The appellate court should ask whether the summing up contains ‘Something which . . deprives the accused of the substance of fair trial and the protection of the law, or which, in general, tends to divert the due and orderly administration of the law into a new course, which may be drawn into an evil precedent in future.’ and
‘It has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law, that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shewn by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale.’

The Lord Chancellor Lord Moulton, Lord Atkinson Lord Sumner, Lord Shaw, Delivered by Lord Sumner
[1914] UKPC 1, [1914] AC 599, [1914] UKPC 16, [1914-15] All ER Rep 874, (1914) 24 Cox CC 174
Bailii, PC, Bailii
Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 4(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Thornton 1824
. .
Cited – Rex v Wilde 1835
. .
Cited – Rex v Kerr 1837
. .
Cited – Regina v William Baldry 1852
A police constable, who apprehended a man on a charge of murder, having told him the nature of the charge aganist him, said ‘he need not say any thing to criminate himself – what he did say would he taken down, and used as evidence against him.’ The . .
Cited – Regina v Thompson 1893
No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised . .
Cited – Regina v Brackenbury 1893
. .
Cited – Rex v Cheverton 1848
. .
Cited – Regina v Pettit 1850
. .
Cited – Regina v Berriman 1854
. .
Cited – Regina v Reason 1872
. .
Cited – Regina v Fennell 1880
. .
Cited – Regina v Gavin 1888
The court excluded a statement made to a constable, who questioned his prisoner in a way that amounted to cross-examination. A constable has no right to ask questions without expressly saying that the answers cannot be relevant evidence. . .
Cited – Regina v Male 1893
The court rejected a statement made by a prisoner in custody to a constable who had cross-examined him, saying merely that the police have no right to manufacture evidence. . .
Cited – Regina v Goddard 1896
The court admitted a statement made by a prisoner in custody to a constable who had cross-examined him. . .
Cited – Regina v Histed 1898
The court excluded the answers of a prisoner in custody, on the authority of R. v. Gavin, saying that the constable was entrapping the prisoner and trying by a trick to set a broken-down case on its legs again. . .
Cited – Rogers v Hawken QBD 1894
(Year unknown) In a case of the admissibility of questions put before arrest, the Divisional Court, (judges not prone to lean against a prisoner)
Held: The statement was admissible and observed that ‘R. v. Male must not be taken as laying down . .
Cited – Regina v Best CCA 1909
Referring to the admissibility of answers to questions put before an arrest, ‘it is quite impossible to say that the fact that a question of this kind has been asked invalidates the trial’. . .
Cited – Regina v Knight and Thayre 1905
Statements were rejected, because they had been obtained from the accused before arrest by means of a long interrogation by a person in authority over him. The court adverted thus to the case of questions put by a constable after arresting:- ‘when . .
Cited – Riel’s Case, ubi supra; ex parte Deeming PC 1892
The Board (PC) has repeatedly treated applications for leave to appeal and the hearing of criminal appeals as being upon the same footing. . .
Cited – Ex parte Macrea PC 1893
The Board cannot give leave to appeal where the grounds suggested could not sustain the appeal itself; nor can it allow an appeal on grounds that would not have sufficed for the grant of permission to bring it. Misdirection, as such, even . .
Cited – Regina v Booth and Jones 1910
Channell J said: ‘the moment you have decided to charge him and practically got him into custody, then, inasmuch as a judge even cannot ask a question or a magistrate, it is ridiculous to suppose that a policeman can. But there is no actual . .
Cited – Rex v Dyson CCA 1908
The court adopted the practice for selecting cases for which leave to appeal should be given which was set down in Makin . .
Cited – Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales PC 12-Dec-1893
The accused had been charged with the murder of an infant who had been given into their care by the child’s mother after payment of a fee. They appealed after admission of evidence that several other infants had been received by the accused persons . .
Cited – Rex v Norton 1910
Where the trial judge has warned the jury not to act upon the objectionable evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal under the similar words of the Act, may refuse to interfere, if it thinks that the jury, giving heed to that warning, would have . .
Cited – Rex v Fisher 1910
Where objectionable evidence has been left for the consideration of the jury without any warning to disregard it, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashes the conviction, if it thinks that the jury may have been influenced by it, even though without it . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ping Lin PC 1976
The Board was asked whether a statement by the defendant was shown to be voluntary.
Held: A trial Judge faced by the problem should approach the task in a common sense way and should ask himself whether the prosecution had proved that the . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Bass CCA 1953
The court considered how to deal with the admission of a statement where the defendant contested its admissibility. Here the defendant said he had not been cautioned before the interview.
Held: It was within the discretion of the judge to . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Cletus Timothy, Dexter Reid and Sheldon Lewis v The State PC 22-Apr-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Cited – Regina v Rennie CACD 1982
In the course of an interrogation, the detective sergeant, after telling the appellant the gist of the information already possessed by the police, said ‘Do me a favour, this was a joint operation by your family to defraud the bank, wasn’t it?’ and . .
Approve – Customs and Excise Commissioners v Harz and Power; Regina v Harz and Power HL 1967
The rule that a confessional statement is not admissible if it was induced by a fear of prejudice or a hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority applies equally where the inducement does not relate to the actual or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.159145

Matytsina v Russia: ECHR 27 Mar 2014

ECHR Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Equality of arms
Handling of evidence in a manner that resulted in placing the defence at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis the prosecution: violation
Facts – The applicant worked for a non-profit association providing training sessions, lectures, personal consultations and the like. According to one of the association’s brochures, the treatment provided would help fight insomnia and depression, strengthen cardio-vascular systems, control emotions and boost natural defence mechanisms. The association operated without a licence as its activities were not considered ‘medical’ in nature. In 2003 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant for the illegal practice of medicine after a client, SD, was diagnosed with serious psychological problems she claimed were directly linked to her participation in training sessions run by the association. A series of expert examinations were conducted in the pre-trial phase to establish whether S.D. had suffered any physical or mental harm as a result of her participation in the sessions and whether the sessions were ‘medical’ in nature. However, she did not give evidence before the trial court owing to her fragile mental state. The applicant was ultimately convicted.
Law
Article 6 – 1: The applicant complained that expert evidence adduced by the prosecution had been taken into consideration, whereas the reports and opinions of experts suggested by the defence had been declared inadmissible. The Court began by noting that the fact that at the beginning of the trial the trial court had only had before it expert reports obtained by the prosecution without any participation of the defence was not, as such, contrary to the Convention, provided that in the trial proceedings the defence had sufficient procedural tools to examine that evidence and effectively challenge it.
As regards the evidence concerning S.D.’s mental condition, the defence had not participated in the process of obtaining any of the expert reports at the investigation stage. Further, a key expert for the prosecution (the rapporteur of the only report based on a personal examination of S.D. and the only person to have claimed that the association’s training sessions had a direct causal link with her subsequent mental disorder) had been absent from the trial and the defence had not been able to question him. The court had refused to order another expert opinion, despite the fact that two other experts had thought a further opinion necessary. Moreover, under Russian law the defence did not have the same rights as the prosecution with regard to obtaining expert opinions: all they could do was either ask the court for an expert examination (and suggest experts and questions) or seek the assistance of ‘specialists’, whose opinion however carried much less weight than that of an ‘expert’. In consequence, the defence had had virtually no possibility of challenging reports submitted by the prosecution with their own counter-evidence. The Court concluded that the combination of the above handicaps experienced by the defence throughout the proceedings had put it at a net disadvantage vis-a-vis the prosecution.
As regards the evidence concerning the nature of the association’s activities, the Court observed that an expert opinion favourable to the defence which the authorities had obtained at the pre-trial stage was either never produced in court or was simply disregarded. Either way, the authorities had breached the fundamental principles of a fair trial, since according to the Court’s case-law, the prosecution must disclose to the defence ‘all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused’, including exculpatory evidence. That rule would make no sense if courts were allowed to leave such evidence without consideration and not even mention it in their judgments.
In sum, the Court was mindful of the fact that the trial judge had heard a number of witnesses for the defence, had examined several expert opinions and had studied various documents. However, the question of whether or not the defence had enjoyed ‘equality of arms’ with the prosecution and whether the trial had been ‘adversarial’ could not be addressed solely in quantitative terms. In the applicant’s case it had been very difficult for the defence to effectively challenge the expert evidence submitted to the court by the prosecution, on which the case against the applicant had been built. In those circumstances, the way in which the expert evidence had been handled had rendered the applicant’s trial unfair.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 – 3 (d): The applicant also complained of his inability to examine SD in court. Instead of hearing her in person, the trial court had used her testimony obtained in the course of the police investigation without the defence’s participation. She was not called to testify in person owing to her fragile mental condition and the danger of a relapse.
The Court was prepared to accept that the interests of a witness, and in particular the physical and mental integrity of the alleged victim of a crime, were important factors which could sometimes justify limitations on the rights of the defence and that the decision at issue had not been arbitrary. More importantly, it considered that S.D.’s testimony had yielded no conclusive evidence against the applicant and had not been ‘sole and decisive’ evidence against her. Given the low level of importance of her testimony, her absence from the trial had not prejudiced the interests of the defence in any significant manner and had been outweighed by genuine concern for her well-being.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

58428/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 435, [2014] ECHR 661
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.524553

Regina v Davis and Thabangu: CACD 5 Dec 2013

The court exercised its rights under section 20 to penalise solicitors pursuing vexatious appeals.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Griffith Williams J, Goss QC
[2013] EWCA Crim 2424
Bailii
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 20
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Achogbuo, Regina v CACD 19-Mar-2014
The Court considered a renewed application for leave to appeal which the Registrar had considered to be without merit and was referred under section 20 of the 1968 Act.
Held: The reference had been properly made. The application for extension . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.524027

Singh-Mann and Others v Regina: CACD 15 Apr 2014

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to defraud, attacking the judge’s summing up.
Held: The appeals failed.
Fulford LJ said, as to where the accused had not given evidence: ‘On the basis of those authorities, it is clear that when a defendant has said little or nothing in interview and has elected not to give or call evidence, ordinarily the limit of the judge’s duty is simply to remind the jury of ‘such assistance, if any, as (defence) counsel had been able to extract from the Crown’s witnesses in cross-examination’ and any ‘significant points made in defence counsel’s speech’. In this context, it is to be stressed that in order to present a defence to the charges the defendant is not compelled to give or to call evidence; instead, he is entitled to rely on evidence presented by the prosecution or by his co-accused when advancing arguments for the jury’s consideration as to whether the prosecution has established his guilt. The rehearsal of this material by the judge does not necessarily have to be extensive or detailed – indeed, frequently it will be sufficient merely to identify the central submissions and the evidence that underpins them – but the judge must generally ensure that the jury receives a coherent rehearsal of the main arguments that are being advanced by the accused.
The timing and the form of this summary (of the main arguments relied on by the defendant) will depend on the circumstances of the case – most particularly, whether the relevant evidence needs to be gathered together in one section of the summing up or whether it is preferable to refer to it incrementally as the judge summarises the evidence in the case as a whole – but in either case the judge ought to explain the key submissions of the accused in support of his defence at a convenient juncture during the summing up.’

Fulford LJ, Hickinbottom, Simler DBE JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 717
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain, Regina v (No 2) CACD 28-Apr-2016
. .
Cited – Lunkulu and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2015
Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523750

Pershad, Regina v: CACD 10 Apr 2014

The defendant appealed against his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the prosection had been allowed to produce and use at trial evidence not previously disclosed. As a practicing barrister he had not paid his VAT for 12 years. He said that he believed this was being paid by his set.
Held: The appeal failed. The court had been wrong to allow the evidence, and in some ways the judge’s summing up had been deficient. However, the case against the defendant was overwhelming. It was essentially correct as to the law and the evidence was otherwise formidable.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Keith, Royce JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 692
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rice CCA 1963
The court considered the status in evidence of a used air ticket.
Held: Where the prosecution have available evidence to establish an essential part of the case for the prosecution, that evidence should be called as part of the case for the . .
Cited – Regina v Phillipson CACD 1990
The prosecution had failed to disclose certain letters and photographs exchanged by the Defendant and the father of her child and used them in cross-examination to rebut her defence that she had been carrying drugs under duress exerted by him. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523656

JC and Another v The Central Criminal Court: QBD 8 Apr 2014

The court was asked whether an order made under s. 39 of the 1933 Act, prohibiting the identification of (among others) a defendant under the age of 18 years, can last indefinitely or whether it automatically expires when that person attains the age of 18 years.
Held: A section 39 order expires when the young person turns 18,and could not be used to protect a young person thereafter.

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Cranston, Holroyde JJ
[2014] EWHC 1041 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 3697, [2014] 2 FCR 571, [2014] 4 All ER 319, [2014] WLR(D) 166, [2014] Crim LR 902, (2014) 178 JP 188, [2014] 2 Cr App R 13, [2014] EMLR 20, [2014] EWHC 1041 (Admin)
Bailii, WLRD
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Aitken v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Apr-2015
The newspaper was accused of publishing an article in breach of reporting restrictions imposed under section 33. The court now asked whether the appellant, the newspaper editor, was for these purposes, the publisher and at risk of criminal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice, Children

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523596

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 become standard practice.
Held: The test for whether should have been disclosed is to ask whether there was a real possibility that, had the jury been shown the evidence not disclosed, they would have reached a different verdict. Disclosure should be made if the statement might have materially weakened or strbengthened either prosecution or defence cases. Under that test, all police statements should be disclosed. However, before a trial could be declared unfair under article 6 on appeal, the court should look to the significance of what had not been disclosed. It was axiomatic that an unfair trial created a miscarriage of justice. If there had been a real possibility of a different outcome, the jury’s verdict should not be allowed to stand. The appeal court had however already applied the correct standard, and the appeal failed.
Lord Brown said: ‘What, then, in the context of an undisclosed statement, makes a trial unfair? This, ultimately, is the determinative question in the case. I would answer it as follows. The trial will be adjudged unfair if, but only if, the appeal court concludes that the non-disclosure gave rise to a real risk of prejudice to the defence. This in turn depends upon whether the appeal court regards the non- disclosure as having denied the defence the real possibility of securing a different outcome. In short, in a case such as this, the appeal should be allowed if the court decides that, had defence counsel been in a position to make use of the undisclosed statement, the jury might reasonably have come to a different conclusion, otherwise not. It is that which must decide whether the jury’s verdict should be allowed to stand. I understand Lord Hope’s approach in para 22 to be entirely consistent with this formulation.’

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr
[2010] UKSC 7, UKSC 2009/0128, 2010 SLT 266, 2010 GWD 8-136, [2010] UKHRR 287, 2010 SC (UKSC) 28
Bailii, Times, SC, SC Summ, Bailii Summary
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – McInnes v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 26-Sep-2008
The appellant appealed his conviction for a serious assault with the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. He complained that documents should have been disclosed to his defence team.
Held: The failure to disclose certain . .
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 . .
Cited – Allison v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 10-Feb-2010
(Scotland) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the prosecution had introduced at trial a statement of a witness who had died before the trial, but they had failed to disclose that he had several convictions and outstanding . .
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 – Her Majesty’s Advocate v Murtagh (the High Court of Justiciary Scotland) PC 3-Aug-2009
All police statements as a class must be disclosed to the accused. . .
Cited – McDonald v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 16-Oct-2008
mcdonaldhmaPC2008
(The High Court of Justiciary Scotland) The defendant sought to appeal against his convictions for murder and and assault. The HCJ in Scotland had refused to receive a devolution minute.
Held: The refusal was itself sufficient to give the . .
Cited – Ruddy and others v Procurator Fiscal, Perth and Another; Robertson v Higson PC 6-Feb-2006
(High Court of Justiciary Scotland) . .
Cited – Montgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .
Cited – Spiers v Ruddy PC 12-Dec-2007
Limits to Powers in Devolution Cases
Mr Spiers had complained as to the competency of two temporary sheriffs called to hear case against him, saying that the temporary nature of their appointments did not allow them to constitute an independent tribunal. He now complained that the . .
Cited – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
Cited – Kelly v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 23-Nov-2005
A statement to the police by the complainer was not made available to the defence. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Cited – McCarthy, Regina (on The Application of) v The Visitors To The Inns of Court and Another CA 20-Jan-2015
The court was asked whether the decision of the Visitors to the Inns of Court dismissing Mr McCarthy’s appeal from the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal should be quashed with a view to the underlying matter being remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal . .
Cited – Brown, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2015
The claimant, a patient hld at Rampton Hospital faced charges of attempted murder of two nurses. His lwayers had asked for the right to see their client in private, but eth Hospital objected, insisting on the presence of two nurses at all times. . .
Cited – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.396704

Downey, Regina v: Misc 21 Feb 2014

Central Criminal Court – The defendant faced charges of terrorist act of murder during the Irish troubles. He argued that the trial ws an abuse of process on four grounds, but particularly for a letter he had received after the Good Friday agreement which, he said, in effect gave a clear reassurance that he would not face trial if he returned to the UK.
Held: On that ground but not otherwise, the prosecution should be stayed: ‘Given the core facts as I have found them to be, and the wider undisputed facts, I have conducted the necessary evaluation of what has occurred in the light of the competing public interests involved. Clearly, and notwithstanding a degree of tempering in this case by the operation of the 1998 Act, the public interest in ensuring that those who are accused of serious crime should be tried is a very strong one (with the plight of the victims and their families firmly in mind). However, in the very particular circumstances of this case it seems to me that it is very significantly outweighed in the balancing exercise by the overlapping public interests in ensuring that executive misconduct does not undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute, and the public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.’

Sweeney J
[2014] EW Misc 7 (CCrimC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521637

Yam v Attorney General: Misc 27 Feb 2014

Central Criminal Court

Ouseley J
[2014] EW Misc 10 (CCrimC)
Bailii
Citing:
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 . .
See Also – Yam, Regina v CACD 28-Jan-2008
An order had been made for the trial of the defendant on a charge of murder to be held excluding both press and public. The Order had been made in the interests of national security and for the protection of the identity of a witness or other . .
See Also – Yam v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that since part of the trial had been in camera the result was unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court addressed submissions advanced on his behalf indicating how substantially . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521641

Chuah, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Crown Court and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2013

Application for judicial review of refusal of leave to appeal against conviction out of time.
Held: Proceedings by way of judicial review were wrong, because the Claimant sought to undermine the basis of the conviction and so any challenge to the Crown Court rulings ought to have been by way of Case Stated.

Saunders, Hickinbottom LJJ
[2013] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520864

Baybasin and Others, Regina v: CACD 13 Dec 2013

The defendants sought leave to appeal against drugs related convictions saying that the method used for jury ballotting by the Crown Court was unlawful, the prosecutor having withdrawn his request for this, and that a juror had convicted after conducted internet searches about his family.
Held: The judge had followed the standard practice at that centre for long trials, but that practice was not used elsewhere. The procedures followed would not have alerted the jurors in any way prejudicial to the defendant, and the procedure might be considered by the Rules Committee.
The allegations of internet misuse were not made out.

Sir John Thomas LCJ, Cox, Holroyds JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 2357
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Comerford CACD 28-Oct-1997
Jury interference was anticipated. The assembled jurors were each allocated a number before being brought into court. Instead of their names being called out in the ballot, their number was called for the ballot. No juror was identified in court by . .
Cited – Lewis and Others v Regina CACD 23-May-2013
The defendants appealed saying that a juror had extraneous material regarding the matters before the court had been researched by a juror.
Held: The court observed at that the inference that complaints after verdicts simply represent a protest . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.518988

Spetsializirana Prokuratura (Declaration Des Droits) (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters): ECJ 30 Sep 2020

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to receive information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 3 to 7 – Written Letter of Rights upon arrest – Right to be informed of the accusation – Right of access to the materials of the case – Person arrested under a European arrest warrant – Remedy against the decision to issue a European arrest warrant – Validity of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 6, 47 and 48

C-649/19, [2020] EUECJ C-649/19_O, ECLI:EU:C:2020:758
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Spetsializirana Prokuratura (Declaration Des Droits) (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 28-Jan-2021
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 4 to 7 – Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Right to information in criminal proceedings – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.663880

Stocker, Regina v: CACD 13 Nov 2013

The prosecutor had made an error in framing a charge against the defendant, who now appealed saying that it was a nullity. After reviewing the authorities, Hallet LJ noted that there was now ‘a clear judicial and legislative steer away from quashing an indictment and allowing appeals on a purely technical defect’.

Hallet LJ VP CACD, Sweeney J, Ziedman QC
[2013] EWCA Crim 1993
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – White v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517651

Gittins v Central Criminal Court: Admn 14 Jan 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC maintained that it could not disclose the information on the basis of which the warrants had been issued, for fear of prejudicing the continuing investigation which was not confined to the claimants. However, on the morning of the hearing HMRC provided a document giving the ‘gist’ of its case, and a redacted transcript of the hearing before HHJ Stephens QC.
Held: Gross LJ observed: ‘When an application for judicial review is launched seeking to quash the grant of a search warrant, it is, again, in some respects, akin to the ‘return date’ for Marevas, Anton Pillers and Restraint Orders. Ordinarily, the expectation will be that the party challenging the grant of the warrant must be entitled to know the basis upon which the warrant was obtained.
By their nature, criminal investigations are such that there will be occasions when, for good reason, HMRC (or other authorities as the case may be) will not be able to divulge the full information or the full contents of the discussion before the judge who granted the warrant. There is an important public interest in combating economic crime, and HMRC’s proper efforts to do so should not be undermined.
Where full disclosure cannot be given (and there will be cases where it cannot be), HMRC should, if at all possible, and again unless there is good reason for not doing so, make available, and in a timely fashion, a redacted copy or at least a note or summary of the information and the hearing before the judge, where appropriate, backed by an affidavit.’
Davis J said: ‘It must not be overlooked that an order issuing a warrant of the kind sought and granted in this case is, by its very nature, highly intrusive. Hence indeed the stringent pre-conditions under the 1984 Act Parliament has stipulated should be fulfilled before such an order may be made. Further, such orders are ordinarily, as here, sought on an ex parte basis: a reversal of course (albeit on well established grounds) of the usual rule that a party is entitled to be heard before any order is granted against him. Those two considerations seem to me to indicate that the prima facie starting point should be for HMRC to give, where requested, to the person who may be aggrieved at the issuing of the warrant and who may wish to challenge it, as much relevant information as practicable, provided it is not prejudicial to the investigation, as to the basis on which the warrant was obtained from the Crown Court.
It is of course relatively easy to envisage that there may be many cases where it could indeed be prejudicial to the investigation, prior to any charging decision, to disclose parts of the information and other materials deployed before the Crown Court judge in seeking the warrant. Non-disclosure in such circumstances can be justified. In the present case for example, we are told that a 59-page information and three supporting folders of materials were placed before the judge. Those have not thus far, in their full terms, been disclosed to Mr Gittins, and indeed Mr Jones QC did not seek to say they should have been, at all events at this stage. But, to repeat, it is not legitimate to move, without additional justification, from a position whereby it can properly be said that not all the materials placed before the Crown Court judge should be disclosed, to a position whereby it can be said that the recipient of the warrant is to be told nothing at all as to the basis on which the warrant was sought.
In my view, therefore, in each case where a request for such information is made by the person the subject of a warrant of the kind made here, HMRC should consider such requests on a individuated basis. Specifically, HMRC should assess what materials and information relied on before the Crown Court can properly be disclosed, with or without editing, and whether by way of summary or otherwise, without prejudicing the criminal investigation. It would be wrong simply to hide behind an asserted general policy as a justification in itself for declining to give any information. Indeed, I suspect that, while there perhaps may be cases where declining to give any information at all may be justified in particular circumstances, such a situation is likely to be an exception. Certainly it should not be taken as a norm. Where such a situation is said by HMRC to arise, then HMRC should be prepared to justify it. It is indeed, as I see it, salutary that that should be so.’

Gross LJ, Davis J
[2011] EWHC 131 (Admin), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 219
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 50
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Global Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Cited – A and Another, (On the Application of) v The Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 26-Jan-2017
(As redacted) Search warrants were challenged on the grounds that insufficient care had been taken of the possibility of the presence of privileged and or ‘excluded’ material. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Taxes Management

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.443271

Regina v Davies: CACD 22 May 2001

The judge when sentencing the offender set a timetable for the purpose of determinations under the 1994 Act, requiring disclosure of assets and expenditure by the defendant within 28 days and a prosecutor’s statement within 28 days thereafter.
Held: Nevertheless, there had been a breach of section 3 because the court had failed to specify a period for which the determinations were postponed. The Court said:
‘The second use of the word ‘may’ in section 3(1) means, in this context, ‘must’ (see R v Ross . .). The Court in Ross did not give reasons for its opinion that this is the proper construction of section 3(1) and Judge LJ did not deal specifically with it in paragraph 58 of his judgment . . in Steele and Shevki. In our view the mandatory nature of the requirement is established by reading section 3 (1) together with section 3(3). The latter reads: ‘Unless it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, the court shall not specify a period under subsection (1) which-‘(a) by itself; or (b) where there have been one or more previous postponements under subsection (1) above or subsection (4) below, when taken together with the earlier specified period or periods exceeds six months beginning with the date of conviction.’
The plain purpose of the section is to place time limits on the determination proceedings. Had Parliament intended merely to set a period within which, subject to exceptional circumstances, the determination must be made, it could, and in our view would, have explicitly so provided. The whole section, particularly subsection (3), is structured upon the assumption that the setting of a period or periods for postponement will take or has taken place. Without the setting of a period under subsection (1), the limitation imposed by subsection (3) does not bite. It follows that either Parliament intended that there should be no limitation when the court chooses not to specify the period, or it intended that the court should specify a period in every case. In our view the latter construction is inevitable.
30. In expressing its decision under section 3 (1), no particular form of words is required, provided that the decision of the court is made before sentence and that the decision of the court is manifest.
The court continued, saying: ‘If no particular form of words is required provided the decision is manifest, then that which is required to be manifest is a decision in compliance with section 3(1), including the period of postponement.’
Despite the timetable, a period had not in fact been specified. The court referred to the ‘necessity to specify a period under section 3(1)’

[2002] 1 WLR 1806, [2001] EWCA Crim 2902, (2002) Crim LR 224, [2001] All ER (D) 268, [2001] 2 Lloyds Rep 348
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002
The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an . .
Doubted – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Regina v Pisciotto CACD 27-Jun-2002
The defendant was subject to a confiscation order. The judge had postponed the determination of the amount, but without specifying when it would take place.
Held: The requirement in the Act was mandatory. When deciding to postpone an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.654029

Regina v Garrod: CACD 18 Oct 1986

The fact on its own that a statement contained matters that might amount to an admission, that did not make the statement a mixed statement

Evans LJ, Scott Baker, Sedley JJ
[1997] Crim LR 445, [1996] EWCA Crim 1149
Bailii
Cited by:
Cited – Shirley, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2013
The defendant had been convicted of several very serious sexual and physical assaults and rapes. He appealed against his conviction, saying that the judge had not fairly represented his defence to the jury. He said that the complainant had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517493

Regina v Clarke and Fletcher: CACD 30 Jul 1997

Hutchison LJ said: ‘The way in which this Court should approach an appeal against conviction, based on allegedly inconsistent verdicts is well settled. To succeed the appellant must show first the verdicts are logically inconsistent, and secondly, that they are so inconsistent as to demand interference by an appellate court i.e. that there is no way in which the logically inconsistent verdicts can be sensibly explained. For those proposition we rely on the authority of R v. Durante.’

Hutchison LJ
(unreported, 30 July 1997)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Durante CACD 1972
Logical inconsistency is generally an essential prerequisite for success of an appeal against conviction on the ground of inconsistency of verdicts. . .
Cited – Regina v McKechnie 1992
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Muhib, Regina v CACD 13-Jan-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter saying that the jury had returned inconsistent verdicts,
Held: ‘there is no possible logical inconsistency in the jury returning a verdict of manslaughter in relation to one victim . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.563176

Regina v Rowbotham and others: 1988

Ontario Court of Appeal – ‘In our view a trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial may, upon being satisfied that the accused lacks the means to employ counsel, stay the proceedings against the accused until the necessary funding of counsel is provided.’ Although they base that upon the charter of the state, they were of the view that the trial judge had the power to do that even before the advent of the charter; in other words, under the Common Law.’

Judges of Appeal Martin, Corey and Grange
(1988) 41 CCC,(3d) 1
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Dadshani 8-Feb-2008
Ontario – Superior Court of Justice – proceeding in the nature of a Rowbotham or Fisher application to secure state funding for the defences of the accused who are facing charges of first degree murder. . .
Cited – P, Regina v Misc 18-Mar-2008
Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings. . .
Cited – In re Brownlee for Judicial Review SC 29-Jan-2014
The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Legal Aid, Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.541393

In re Brownlee for Judicial Review: SC 29 Jan 2014

The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed fee legal aid scheme. He had succeeded at first instance, but the Court of Appeal had held the Rules to be lawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Rules failed to make allowance for the need for legal representatives to be paid for preparatory work in connection with sentencing had not been allowed for. However, sice the Rules had already been amended, the remedy would be by way of a declaration, rather than mandamus.
The Court of appeal had not allowed for the fact that the change of representation was initiated by the legal representatives and not by the appellant.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 4, UKSC 2013/0247, [2014] NI 188
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal from – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review CANI 23-Oct-2013
The applicant had successfully challenged the Legal Aid rules as they applied to his seeking representation on a sentencing issue in the Crown Court which had led to him being unable to find legal representation because of the inadequacy of the fee . .
At First Instance – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review QBNI 20-Mar-2013
The applicant, a convicted prisoner sought a declaration that the respondent’s decision to make no provision for exceptional circumstances in the payment of fees under the 2011 Amendment Rules is unlawful and a declaration that the said Rules . .
Cited – Regina v Rowbotham and others 1988
Ontario Court of Appeal – ‘In our view a trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial may, upon being satisfied . .
Cited – McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another PC 24-May-2001
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small . .
Cited – Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .
Cited – P, Regina v Misc 18-Mar-2008
Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings. . .
Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Aid

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.521153

Rahmdezfouli, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Wood Green and Another: Admn 9 Oct 2013

The appellant challenged the refusal to allow him to vacate a guilty plea to a charge of failures to comply with a planning enforcement notice. It had been agreed that the magistrates had failed to ask the two questions required under the 1980 Act. The claimant contended that the Crown Court Judge erred in refusing to allow him to vacate his plea after finding as a fact that the magistrates’ court clerk had ‘failed to ask the statutory questions of the applicant’ as required by s.17A of the MCA. It was not disputed that the requisite procedure had not been followed ‘in any respect’, and ‘defence counsel conferred with his client and on coming into court told the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the offence. It was argued by the Interested Party . . that it was therefore appropriate for the court to accept from what counsel said that this defendant was fully aware of the implications of the offence to which he was intending to plead guilty and should therefore be regarded as having been fully informed before making that decision.’
The claimant, submitted: ‘that there was a requirement that the defendant should at the least have explained to him by the court, in ordinary language as the section requires, of four essential things: that the offence he faced was an either way offence; that he would be asked for an indication as to his plea if the case proceeded to trial; that if he indicated he wished to plead guilty that would be treated as a guilty plea; and fourthly that the court had the power to send him to the Crown Court for sentence if it thought right so to do.’Mackay J replied: ‘The issue therefore in this claim is whether it was the intention of Parliament that a failure to follow the statutory procedure laid down in section 17A rendered all subsequent proceedings invalid and a nullity, or whether they were to be considered a procedural failure.’ The claimant submiitted that the failure in that case ‘went to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction’. A magistrates’ court only derived its jurisdiction from statute and was only entitled to try an either way offence, as opposed to a summary offence, where the statutory requirement has been fully complied with. Mackay J observed that there was ‘a clear line of authority’ supporting that submission. He referred, inter alia, to Cockshott and Ex p Machin. He noted that theauthorities were not disapproved in Ashton. Quashing the conviction, Mackay J reasoned: ‘Adopting the criterion expressed in paragraph 4 of Ashton and not disapproved by the House of Lords in [Clarke] the legislature in enacting section 17A must have intended . . acting in line with then existing authority, that where a magistrates’ court declined or failed to follow the requirements of the section it was acting without jurisdiction every bit as much as if, for instance, it had purported to try a defendant on a charge of homicide . . ..’

Moses LJ, MacKay J
[2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 377, (2013) 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 All ER 567, [2014] Crim LR 158, 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 Cr App R 20
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates Court Act 1980 17A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin 1952
The applicant had been charged before the justices with indictable offences. He consented to summary trial but it had not been explained to him that he might be committed to the Quarter Sessions for sentence.
Held: The court allowed . .
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 – Westminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516326

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 the acquittal of the fourth defendant, followed a fair trial.’ Criticisms had been made, but ‘ the question for decision is not one of professional discipline, but whether the trial was marred by any unfairness to one or more of the appellants which renders any of the convictions unsafe.’ Defence counsel: ’embarked on the forensic strategy of an all-out attack on every aspect of the prosecution case, sometimes at a very late stage in the process, in circumstances which can be described as ‘ambush’ and of confrontation with and disobedience to the judge. The objective of this strategy would have been to seek to distract the attention of the jury from the simple question which they were required to address: what conclusions should properly be drawn from the incontrovertible evidence of these conversations? ‘ . . And . . ‘This was not fearless advocacy, with the advocate necessarily standing firm in the interests of his client in the best traditions of the Bar. Advocacy of the kind employed . . would rapidly destroy a system for the administration of justice which depends on a sensible, as we have emphasised, respectful working relationship between the judge and independent minded advocates responsibly fulfilling their complex professional obligations.’
The court gave detailed guidance on the limits of behaviour for an advocate in presenting his client’s case.
As to the defendant’s decision not to give evidence: ‘There is no credible material to support the proposition that Farooqi did not make an informed decision or that he was improperly advised. The submission that he should have been told in terms that he needed to go into the witness box has the disadvantage of being made in hindsight and from a different tactical viewpoint. It also fails to acknowledge the devastating nature of the cross-examination to which Farooqi would have been exposed, and its possible damaging impact on the remaining defendants including Farooqi’s son. It is clear to us that there was significant discussion of the pros and cons of giving and/or calling evidence; it is clear that Farooqi was aware that he had a free hand in the matter; and the overwhelming inference is that he understood the general approach of the defence, which was not to challenge the primary evidence given, but to seek to set it in a context favourable to him. There is nothing in this point.’

Igor Judge, Baron Judge LCJ, Treacy LJ, Sharp J
[2013] EWCA Crim 1649
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kelly, Regina (on the Application of) v Warley Magistrates Court and The Law Society Admn 31-Jul-2007
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516265

Practice Direction On Costs In Criminal Proceedings: CACD 3 Oct 2013

John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1632, [2013] 1 WLR 3255
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Criminal Practice Directions CACD 3-Oct-2013
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 11-Sep-2014
Virgin had successfully taken a private prosecution against the defendants for copyright infringement. They sought an order for their costs to be paid from central funds. On taking confiscation proceedings, costs were now sought against the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516268

Jolleys, Regina v, Ex Parte Press Association: CACD 27 Jun 2013

Leveson LJ said: ‘It was for anyone seeking to derogate from open justice to justify that derogation by clear and cogent evidence: see R v Central Criminal Court ex parte W, B and C [2001] 1 Cr App R 2 and in civil cases, the Practice Guidance (Interim Non-disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1033 and Derispaska v Cherney [2012] EWCA Civ 1235 per Lewison LJ (at paragraph 14). The order was made when defence counsel asserted the likelihood of the defendant’s son suffering ‘the most extraordinary stigma through no fault of his own’ which caused the Recorder to ask the reporter what the need for identifying the son was, rather than whether it was necessary to restrict his identification.’

Leveson LJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1135
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516262

Prokuratura Rejonowa Lodz-Baluty (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters – Mutual Recognition – Failure To Provide A Translation of The Decision Being Enforced): ECJ 6 Oct 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition – Financial penalties – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution – Article 20(3) – Decision imposing a financial penalty – Observance of the rights of the defence – Notification of documents in a language not understood by the sentenced person – Translation of the essential elements of the decision

[2021] EUECJ C-338/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:805
Bailii
European
Citing:
Opinion – Prokuratura Rejonowa Lodz-Baluty (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters – Mutual Recognition – Failure To Provide A Translation of The Decision Being Enforced – Opinion) ECJ 2-Sep-2021
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition – Financial penalties – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.668604

Prokuratura Rejonowa Lodz-Baluty (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters – Mutual Recognition – Failure To Provide A Translation of The Decision Being Enforced – Opinion): ECJ 2 Sep 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition – Financial penalties – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution – Failure to provide a translation of the decision being enforced – Linguistic rights – Right to a fair trial

C-338/20, [2021] EUECJ C-338/20_O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Prokuratura Rejonowa Lodz-Baluty (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters – Mutual Recognition – Failure To Provide A Translation of The Decision Being Enforced) ECJ 6-Oct-2021
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Mutual recognition – Financial penalties – Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA – Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.668521

Spetsializirana Prokuratura (Declaration Des Droits) (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters): ECJ 28 Jan 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 4 to 7 – Letters of Rights set out in Annexes I and II – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Letter of Rights on arrest – Right to be informed of the accusation – Right of access to the materials of the case – Person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in the executing Member State

[2021] EUECJ C-649/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:75
Bailii
European
Citing:
Cited – Spetsializirana Prokuratura (Declaration Des Droits) (Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 30-Sep-2020
Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Right to receive information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2012/13/EU – Articles 3 to 7 – Written Letter of Rights upon arrest – Right to be informed of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.669894

Brownlee, Re Judicial Review: QBNI 20 Mar 2013

The applicant, a convicted prisoner sought a declaration that the respondent’s decision to make no provision for exceptional circumstances in the payment of fees under the 2011 Amendment Rules is unlawful and a declaration that the said Rules operate to constitute a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial pursuant to Art 6 of the ECHR. He was awaiting sentence, on a matter which might leave him subject to an indeterminate life sentence, but had no legal representation. The judge at trial had decided that he needed representation at a senior level. The LSC had cofirmed that having switched legal representation, fees would be available only on a fixed fee basis.
Held: The Rules were unlawful: ‘in order to avoid illegality there must be a modest adjustment to the impugned scheme or some other provision to enable the necessary adjustment to meet the exceptional and unusual circumstances which have arisen and to avoid the injustice which will thereby inevitably result if this is not done.’ Treacy J made an order of mandamus requiring the respondent, the Department of Justice to take all necessary steps to make Mr Brownlee’s right to legal aid effective.

Treacy J
[2013] NIQB 36
Bailii
Crown Court Proceedings (Cost) (Amendment) Rules 2011, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Citing:
Cited – P, Regina v Misc 18-Mar-2008
Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review CANI 23-Oct-2013
The applicant had successfully challenged the Legal Aid rules as they applied to his seeking representation on a sentencing issue in the Crown Court which had led to him being unable to find legal representation because of the inadequacy of the fee . .
At First Instance – In re Brownlee for Judicial Review SC 29-Jan-2014
The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice, Legal Aid, Human Rights, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.503527

Regina v Shaw: CACD 1980

It was counsel who must decide whether he could continue properly to represent a client, not the judge.

[1980] 70 CAR 313
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.260271

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 arrested. They were acquitted in January 1988. The investigation of the complaints was then resumed. In March 1989 (approaching two years after the incident), the police officer was served with summonses alleging two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He consulted a solicitor. In the Crown Court, over two years after the incident, the police officers submitted that in view of the delay the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of the court. There had been delay by the prosecution in bringing a police officer to trial, so that the trial was not due to start till 27 months after the alleged offence.
Held: The trial judge held that, although the delay was not unjustified, on the balance of probabilities it might be prejudicial to the police officer and he ordered the proceedings to be stayed.
The traditional common law approach to abuse of process cases is that the courts may in their discretion, refuse the relief of a stay where to proceed would not amount to an abuse of process, or the unfairness could be cured. ‘The trial process itself is equipped to deal with the bulk of complaints which have founded applications for a stay.’ The power to order a stay is ‘a power to be exercised only in exceptional cases’.
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘In answer to the second question posed by the Attorney-General, no stay should be imposed unless the defendant shows on the balance of probabilities that owing to the delay he will suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial can be held: in other words, that the continuance of the prosecution amounts to a misuse of the process of the court. In assessing whether there is likely to be prejudice and if so whether it can properly be described as serious, the following matters should be borne in mind: first, the power of the judge at common law and under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to regulate the admissibility of evidence; secondly, the trial process itself, which should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury as part of the evidence for their consideration, together with the powers of the judge to give appropriate directions to the jury before they consider their verdict.
It follows from what we have said that in our judgment the decision of the judge to stay the proceedings in the instant case was wrong. The delay, such as it was, was not unjustifiable; the chances of prejudice were remote; the degree of potential prejudice was small; the powers of the judge and the trial process itself would have provided ample protection for the respondent; there was no danger of the trial being unfair; in any event the case was in no sense exceptional so as to justify the ruling.
This judgment will, we hope, result in a significant reduction in the number of applications to stay proceedings on the ground of delay. At the risk of repetition, we emphasise the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction. In the event of an unsuccessful application to the Crown Court on such grounds, the appropriate procedure will be for the trial to proceed in accordance with the ruling of the trial judge and, if necessary, the point should be argued as part of any appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).’

Lord Lane CJ
[1992] QB 630, (1992) 95 Cr App R 296
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited – Regina v 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 by:
Cited – Culpepper v The State PC 20-Dec-2000
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. An elderly lady had been raped and murdered. Other evidence had been destroyed in a fire at the police station, and the . .
Cited – Regina v Parker CACD 30-Jan-2003
The defendant appealed a conviction for causing criminal damage by fire with risk to life. The evidence was that no explanation existed other than that the fire had been started deliberately. She said she had been trying to light a cigarette in bed. . .
Cited – Aaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
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 – 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 – Department for Work and Pensions v Courts Admn 3-May-2006
The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, . .
re-stated. – S, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-2006
The court restated the principles applying a stay for abuse of process occasioned by delay. Rose VP LJ said: , the correct approach for a judge to whom an application for a stay for abuse of process on the ground of delay is made, is to bear in mind . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Cited – J, Regina v CACD 2-Jul-2001
Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.179818

Regina v G and B: CACD 2004

Rose LJ said: ‘Both in principle and pragmatically, whether a solicitor or barrister can properly continue to act is a matter for him or her and not the court, although of course the court can properly make observations on the matter’.

Rose LJ
[2004] 2 Cr App R 37, [2004] EWCA 1368
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.252539

Regina v Kempster: CACD 11 Dec 2003

Mantell LJ said that: ‘The judge has a discretion whether or not to grant an adjournment so as to permit fresh counsel to be instructed. The discretion has to be exercised with regard to the interests of justice in the particular case. The interests of the defendant, but also those of the prosecution, the witnesses and the public have to be taken into account. We have had regard to these principles, and to the provisions of Article 6.’

Mr Justice Jackson Lord Justice Mantell The Recorder Of Manchester
[2003] EWCA Crim 3555
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cadamartriea, Regina v CACD 18-Oct-2019
Appeal from conviction of murder – whether a fair trial after a withdrawal by his counsel at the conclusion of his evidence. Counsel had said they were professionally embarrassed by new instructions.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.188712

In re Hill and Others (Restraint Order): CACD 20 Dec 2005

The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Under the former law, criminal proceedings had to be about to be begun before the jurisdiction to make an order arose, but: ‘the judge erred in his approach to the requirement of section 40(2)(a), when read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Commencement Order. The test to be applied is whether an investigation has begun into an offence which took place after 24th March 2003. In order to satisfy section 69, the offence must be one in respect of which a confiscation order may be made following conviction. For the purpose of establishing jurisdiction to make an order, it matters not whether the investigating authority is also investigating one or more offences which occurred before 24th March 2003. Nor does it matter, for the purpose of jurisdiction, that there is criminal conduct occurring before 24th March 2003, which underlies the post March 2003 offences – as may occur with money laundering. In our view, the time at which the test is to be applied is the time when the application is made, not when the investigation began. That is clear from the words of section 40(2)(a). All that is required therefore, to establish jurisdiction, is that an offence that may, following conviction, give rise to a confiscation order is under investigation at the time of the application. ‘

Smith LJ, Jack J, Milford QC
Times 27-Dec-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 3271
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 \\\\840(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.237474

Regina v Williams: CACD 28 Jun 2005

The defendant had been convicted of many motoring offences. In sentencing him the judge had added an Anti-Social behaviour Order, which would have the effect of imposing a greater punishment for any further offences than would be possible for the offences themselves.
Held: The order if used for that purpose was improper.

Mance LJ, Elias J, Sir Charles Mantell
Times 15-Jul-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1796
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hall CACD 2004
The court considered the propriety of making an anti-social behaviour at the same time as sentencing for traffic offences: ‘There is nothing wrong in principle in making such an order when there are driving offences of such a regularity and type and . .
Cited – Regina v Kirby CACD 2005
The court asked when it might be able to add an anti-social behaviour order when sentencing: ‘To make an anti-social behaviour order in a case . . . Where the underlying objective was to give the court higher sentencing powers in the event of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.228612

Gazette Media Company Ltd. and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Teeside Crown Court: CACD 26 Jul 2005

The claimants appealed an order restricting their reporting of a criminal case so as to identify the defendant.
Held: Orders preventing the naming of a defendant in order to protect associated children are unlikely to enhance any child protection issues. The order was however required in this case. The actual order was quashed and an order along the lines of ex parte Godwin substituted.

[2005] EWCA Crim 1983, Times 08-Aug-2005
Bailii
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 839
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – ex parte Godwin CA 1992
An order had been made to include provision that ‘the names and addresses of the defendants shall . . not be revealed or published’. The court was now asked whether a criminal court had power under section 39 of the CYP Act to prohibit in terms the . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Carter (T/A Michael Carter Partnership) v Harold Simpson Associates (Architects) Ltd (Jamaica) PC 14-Jun-2004
(Jamaica) A joint venture partnership dispute was referred to arbitration. Certain elements were appealed and remitted. One party claimed that the entire arbitration was deprived of legal effect.
Held: The amended award following remittal was . .
Cited – Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 6-Nov-2001
A bare order restricting reporting under the section was too vague to allow a later prosecution for contempt. Crook had established that the court must specify just what restrictions are to apply. . .
Cited – Simpson v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.229033

Regina v Jones (Robert) No 2: 1972

The court was entitled to proceed to hear the case in the absence of the defendant where he had absconded. I was counsel’s prerogative not the judge’s, to decide whether he could continue to represent the defendant.

[1972] 1 WLR 887, [1972] 56 CAR 413
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Delroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.242117

Regina v Abdrolkov; Regina v Breen; Regina v Williamson: CACD 28 Jul 2005

The defendants severally claimed that the presence on their respective juries of serving police officers or a solicitor employed by the CPS would cause bias.
Held: The presence of somebody involved professionally in the administration of justice need not allow a presumption of bias. None had any direct connection with the cases before them. The jury system which required unanimity or a majoity of ten provided real protection against individual bias. No reasonable objective onlooker would conclude that there was bias. The appeals were dismissed.

Lord Woolf LCJ, Richards, Henriques JJ
Times 18-Aug-2005
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.229376

Grzegorz Szwejer v Poland: ECHR 18 May 2010

The claimant complained of the length of delay in facing his trial on criminal charges.

Nicolas Bratza, P
5258/08, [2010] ECHR 806
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Grzegorz Szwejer v Poland ECHR 15-May-2009
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515413

Regina v D(R): Misc 16 Sep 2013

Crown Court at Blackfriars – the court was asked to what extent a witness wanting, from religious conviction, to hide her face with the niqaab form of Islamic dress should be allowed to do so, whilst giving evidence.
Held: The court considered expert evidence as to Islamic belief and custom, and also the Equal Treatment Bench book. The defendant had a qualified right to manifest her religion. The question was not one of judge craft, but of law. The defendant should be obliged to remove the material masking her face when giving evidence.

Peter Murphy Judge
[2013] EW Misc 13 (CC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 1991
An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Regina v Malvern Justices, Ex parte Evans 1988
The circumstances in which it is appropriate for a court to allow a name or other names to be withheld are rare. The Court cannot derogate from this principle for lesser purposes, including that of sparing the feelings of a defendant. . .
Cited – Van Mechelen And Others v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Apr-1997
A Dutch court had convicted the applicants of attempted manslaughter and robbery on the basis of statements made, before their trial, by anonymous police officers, none of whom gave evidence before the Regional Court or the investigating judge. The . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515317

Regina v Karakaya: CACD 16 Feb 2005

No Internet Research for juror

After conclusion of the trial, the jury bailiff discovered notes in the jury room which indictated that the jury, after they had retired for their verdict, had read and discussed notes obtained by a juror from the Internet relating to the case.
Held: Applying Mirza, the court could examine the materials found. ‘[T]he material obtained by the juror from the internet after the jury had retired, contravened the principles which prohibit the use of information, potentially relevant to the outcome of the case, privately obtained out of court by a juror, as well as the reception of further material after the jury’s retirement. Having considered the material, we are not satisfied that these convictions are safe. ‘ The court suggested that the Judicial Studies Board might consider guidance on judicial directions to cover these and related issues.

Lord Justice Judge, Cresswell, Deputy Chief Justice of England And Wales, Fulford J
[2005] EWCA Crim 346, Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5, [2005] Crim LR 574
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Owen CCA 1952
The trial judge allowed a doctor who had already given evidence in the case, to be recalled to give evidence in answer to a question raised by the jury after its retirement.
Held: The conviction was quashed: ‘ . . Once the summing up is . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Regina v Wilson QBD 1957
‘The principle that, once the summing up is concluded, no further evidence ought to be given, must be maintained in every case, and, if further evidence is allowed at that stage, . . the conviction will be quashed.’ The court considered the nature . .
Cited – Regina v Gearing CACD 1966
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It has always been a very strict rule of this court that no evidence whatever must be introduced after the jury have retired.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Sanderson CCA 1953
It was permissible for the evidence for a witness for the defence (only) to be taken after the summing up had been completed, but before the jury had retired. . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (George) CACD 1976
After retirement, the jury requested, and was inadvertently supplied with a copy of a statement made by a witness to the police. The statement had been used by defence counsel for the purposes of cross-examination, but the document itself had not . .
Cited – Regina v Stewart and Sappleton CACD 1989
After retirement, the jury requested provision of scales which were given. The defendants faced an accusation of importing cannabis of a certain weight, and claimed to have been unaware of the presence of the cannabis in their bags.
Held: Once . .
Cited – Regina v Maggs CACD 1990
The charge was of causing death by dangerous driving. Sketch plans with measurements were supplied to the jury. They asked for and were given a tape measure. The defendant appealed.
Held: Though once they retired the hjury should not be given . .
Cited – Regina v Thomas (Horatio Gerald) CACD 9-Feb-1987
The jury had, after retirement, requested and been given a map which had not been referred to in the case. Counsel were not consulted.
Held: The use of the map was a material irregularity: ‘It is hardly necessary to say that an action of this . .
Cited – Regina v Oliver (Ian) CACD 6-Dec-1995
Detailed guidance was given on directions when a jury are to be allowed to split up overnight after retiring using the court’s discretion under s43, including ‘1. That the jury must decide the case on the evidence and the arguments which they have . .
Cited – Regina v Fricker CACD 24-Jun-1999
The defendant was charged with attempting to handle stolen tyres, a juror, with highly specialised knowledge of tyre manufacturing asked, after retirement, and was allowed by the judge to take this knowledge into account.
Held: Where a juror . .

Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
Cited – Cadman v Regina CACD 3-Jul-2008
Appeal from conviction of fraud – material provided to the jury after retirement which had not been used during the trial and made available to be challenged.
Held: Conviction set aside: ‘For the jury to use the extraneous material provided . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.223105

Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza: HL 22 Jan 2004

Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities

The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use of an interpreter was a mere ploy. In the other a juror reported that other jurors had refused to consider the evidence properly.
Held: ‘We shall never know’ fits in uneasily with modern conceptions of fairness and due process in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the common law should not be extended to permit enquiries into events in the jury room where they are not now permitted. That so many jury verdicts are majority verdicts indicates that there is often strong disagreement. ‘This is inevitably a fertile scenario for a dissident juror, maybe honestly, maybe not, to claim that the majority disregarded or misunderstood the judge’s direction, did not understand the facts, were not prepared to listen to argument or were prejudiced in some way.’ The rule against any investigation or inquiry into jury deliberations is a rule of admissibility; evidence about the deliberations of the jury is therefore inadmissible. The House made recommendations for possible improvements in practice in Crown Courts as to the instruction of juries.

Lord Steyn, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[2004] UKHL 2, Times 23-Jan-2004, [2004] 2 WLR 201, [2004] 1 AC 1118, [2004] HRLR 11, 16 BHRC 279, [2004] 2 Cr App R 8, [2004] 1 All ER 925
House of Lords, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands CA 1980
The appellant had been convicted of an IRA bombing, causing loss of many lives. The appellant and his other co-accused alleged that their confessions had been induced by police violence. The trial judge ruled that their confessions were voluntary . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Gregory v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
gregory_ukECHR1997
A judge’s direction to the jury to disregard any question of racial bias was sufficient to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. In discussing the protection of the secrecy of jury deliberations: ‘The court acknowledges that the rule governing the . .
Cited – Pilar Aida Rojas v Brian Berllaque PC 10-Nov-2003
PC (Gibraltar) The system of selecting a criminal jury obliged men to be available for selection, but women could choose not to be on the role of jurors. The result was that jury lists and juries were almost . .
Cited – Ellis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
Cited – Regina v Qureshi CACD 23-Jul-2001
The appellant had been convicted of arson. A few days after the conviction, one juror reported concern about the behaviour of the jury.
Held: Authority was clear, that the court could not enter into an investigation of what had happened with . .
Cited – Stewart v Fraser 1830
The court asked under what circumstances it would be permitted to enquire as to a jury’s deliberations. The court approved the description in Hume’s Commentaries. . .
Cited – Ras Behari Lal v King-Emperor PC 1933
It was alleged that a juror had been unable to understand sufficient English to follow the trial.
Held: The rule against enquiring into the events in the jury room has an exception where there are external events which may have affected them. . .
Cited – Regina v Thompson CCA 1962
There was tendered to the court what appeared to be a statement from a juror asserting that a majority of the jury had been ready to acquit until the foreman read out a list of the previous convictions of the accused.
Held: ‘This court is now . .
Cited – Regina v Hood CCA 1968
An affidavit was submitted to say that a juror had known, independently, of the defendant’s previous convictions. The juror’s knowledge came from acquaintance with the mother of the prisoner’s wife.
Held: The conviction was upheld. Events in a . .
Cited – Dr John Roylance v The General Medical Council Oral judgment upon petition PC 19-Jan-1999
(Medical Act 1983) Discussions in camera by the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council attracted public interest immunity and were not disclosable to the party before the council. . .
Cited – Attorney General v New Statesman and National Publishing Company Ltd 1981
The Attorney General sought an order of contempt of court at common law following the publication in the ‘New Statesman’ of a juror’s account of significant parts of the jury’s deliberations in the course of arriving at their verdict in the trial of . .
Cited – Swankie v H M Advocate 1991
Enquiries into a jury’s deliberations might be allowable as to extraneous events which might have affected them. . .
Cited – Regina v Brandon CACD 1969
The court considered whether events outside the jury room having possible effects on deliberations might leave those open to enquiry. The jury bailiff had told the jury of the accused’s previous convictions. This was a grave irregularity, was . .
Cited – Regina v BM and Another CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .
Cited – Regina v Young (Stephen) CACD 30-Dec-1994
Jury Consulting Ouija Board – Serious Irregularity
It had been suggested that during their overnight stay in a hotel after retiring to consider their verdict, some of the jurors had consultated an ouija board to consult with the deceased, and to ask him who had been his killer. Having believed that . .
Cited – Lalchan Nanan v The State PC 1986
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might . .
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Cited – Sander v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2000
In a trial of an Asian defendant a juror complained that other jurors had made racist jokes, and feared that the defendant would not receive a fair trial. The judge obtained re-assurance from the jury that they would not so act, but did so in a way . .
Cited – Regina v Sawyer 2001
(Canada) the court considered the reasons underlying the need for secrecy of a jury’s deliberations: ‘The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential . .
Cited – Remli v France ECHR 23-Apr-1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) (Art. 14+6); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) (Art. 6); Preliminary objection rejected (out of time) . .
Cited – Vaise v Delaval 1785
The court refused to receive affidavits from two jurors indicating that they had decided on their verdict by tossing a coin to resolve the issue. The rationale was that this was to protect them against self-incrimination for what he described as a . .
Cited – Harvey v Hewitt 1840
It was alleged that the jurors had drawn lots to select their verdict: ‘No doubt . . that we cannot take the affidavit of a juryman stating his own misconduct, or that of his brother jurymen . . The affidavits here produced, however, are not made by . .
Cited – Regina v Andrew Brown 1906
(New South Wales – Australia) Darley CJ said: ‘I have come to the conclusion that the authorities are all one way, and that the Court cannot look at the affidavits of jurymen for any purpose, whether it be for the purpose of granting a new trial, or . .
Cited – Regina v Armstrong HL 1922
The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife by giving her arsenic. His defence was that he had not administered the poison, although he admitted that he had arsenic which, he said, he used as a weed killer. He claimed that his wife had . .
Cited – Ellis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
Cited – HM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 4-Feb-1994
Following the acquittal of a prominent politician on a charge of conspiracy to murder, the New Statesman magazine published an article, based on an interview with one of the jurors, which gave an account of significant parts of the jury’s . .
Cited – The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for an Order etc SCS 29-Aug-2000
The court drew attention to the difference between the situation where the court itself makes inquiries as to events in the jury retiring room with the aim of bringing the court in question into contempt and that where it makes inquiries with the . .
Cited – Pirie v Caledonian Railway Company 1890
It was out of the question for the court to entertain any challenge after the trial to a verdict which had been delivered and agreed to by the jurors as their verdict. This was settled law in Scotland. . .
Cited – Boston v W S Bagshaw and Sons (Note) CA 1966
Once a jury have given their verdict, and it has been accepted by the judge, and they have been discharged, they are not at liberty to say that they meant something different: ‘The reasons for this are twofold: first, to secure the finality of . .
Cited – Rex v Wooller 1817
Some of the jurors, although present when the verdict was delivered, were so placed that they were not able to hear what the foreman said and were in fact in disagreement with it.
Held: The exclusionary rule had not been infringed by evidence . .
Cited – Rex v Thomas CCA 1933
The court refused to receive evidence that two Welsh-speaking jurors at Merioneth Quarter Sessions did not have sufficient knowledge of English to enable them to follow the proceedings. . .
Cited – Pullar v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-1996
The applicant P was an elected councillor. He faced a charge of corruption, being said to have have offered, for reward, to support a planning application made by M, a partner in a firm of architects, and C, a partner in a firm of quantity . .
Cited – Montgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .

Cited by:
Applied – Practice Direction (Crown court: Guidance to Jurors) CACD 23-Feb-2004
Where jurors had concerns about the behaviour of fellow jurors, they should bring these to the attention of the judge during the trial rather than after. Jurors should be told of this, but not in such a way as to encourage inappropriate criticism of . .
Cited – Transco Plc v Her Majesty’s Advocates HCJ 16-Sep-2004
A dwellinghouse had exploded, killing the occupants. The defendant was to be tried for alleged breaches of the 1974 Act in the gas supoplies to the house. The appellant complained that a jury trial would be an infringement of its rights, since a . .
Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Cited – Regina v Karakaya CACD 16-Feb-2005
No Internet Research for juror
After conclusion of the trial, the jury bailiff discovered notes in the jury room which indictated that the jury, after they had retired for their verdict, had read and discussed notes obtained by a juror from the Internet relating to the case.
Cited – Attorney General v Scotcher HL 19-May-2005
Following a trial, a juror wrote to the defendant’s mother to say that other jury members had not considered the case in a proper manner. He had been given written advice that he was not free to discuss a case with anyone. He appealed his conviction . .
Cited – Pintori, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of class A drugs, saying that the drugs found had belonged to somebody who had stayed at his flat whilst he had been away. One of the jurors later told a police officer that she had known through . .
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Cited – Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2012
The first applicant had been chairman of a jury and had expressed his concerns about their behaviour to the second applicant who published them. They were prosecuted under the 1981 Act. They had said that no details of the deliberations had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.192108

O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 21 Nov 1996

Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief

The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded need not be based on the arresting officer’s own observations. All that is required is a genuine and reasonably based suspicion in the mind of the officer. The test as to whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify an arrest is partly subjective, in that the arresting officer must have formed a genuine suspicion that the person being arrested was guilty of an offence, and partly objective, in that there must be reasonable grounds for forming such a suspicion. Such grounds can arise from information received from another, even if it subsequently proves to be false, provided that a reasonable man, having regard to all the circumstances, would regard them as reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Lord Hope considered what was the level of suspicion necessary to found a valid arrest under the section, saying: ‘My Lords, the test which s 12(1) of the 1984 Act has laid down is a simple but practical one. It relates entirely to what is in the mind of the arresting officer when the power is exercised. In part it is a subjective test, because he must have formed a genuine suspicion in his own mind that the person has been concerned in acts of terrorism. In part also it is an objective one, because there must also be reasonable grounds for the suspicion which he has formed. But the application of the objective test does not require the court to look beyond what was in the mind of the arresting officer. It is the grounds which were in his mind at the time which must be found to be reasonable grounds for the suspicion which he has formed. All that the objective test requires is that these grounds be examined objectively and that they be judged at the time when the power was exercised.’
Lord Steyn said: ‘Certain general propositions about the powers of constables under a section such as section 12(1) can now be summarised. (1) In order to have a reasonable suspicion the constable need not have evidence amounting to a prima facie case. Ex hypothesi one is considering a preliminary stage of the investigation and information from an informer or a tip-off from a member of the public may be enough: Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942, 949. (2) Hearsay information may therefore afford a constable a reasonable ground to arrest. Such information may come from other officers: Hussien’s case, ibid. (3) The information which causes the constable to be suspicious of the individual must be in existence to the knowledge of the police officer at the time he makes the arrest. (4) The executive ‘discretion’ to arrest or not as Lord Diplock described it in Mohammed-Holgate v. Duke [1984] A.C. 437, 446, vests in the constable, who is engaged on the decision to arrest or not, and not in his superior officers.’ and
‘For obvious practical reasons police officers must be able to rely upon each other in taking decisions as to whom to arrest or where to search and in what circumstances. The statutory power does not require that the constable who exercises the power must be in possession of all the information which has led to a decision, perhaps taken by others, that the time has come for it to be exercised. What it does require is that the constable who exercises the power must first have equipped himself with sufficient information so that he has reasonable cause to suspect before the power is exercised.’

Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 15-Jan-1997, Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] UKHL 6, [1997] AC 286, [1997] 1 All ER 129, [1997] 2 WLR 1, [1996] NI 8, [1997] Crim LR 432, [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 447
House of Lords, Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 12(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey CA 10-Jun-1988
Whether an officer had reasonable cause to arrest somebody without a warrant depended upon an objective assessment of the information available to him, and not upon his subjective beliefs. The court had three questions to ask (per Woolf LJ): ‘(a) . .
Cited – Hussien v Chong Fook Kam PC 7-Oct-1969
(Malaysia) The Board considered the propriety of an arrest by the police. Lord Devlin said: ‘An arrest occurs when a police officer states in terms that he is arresting or when he uses force to restrain the individual concerned. It occurs also when . .
Distinguished – McKee v Chief Constable for Northern Ireland HL 1984
The House considered the state of mind of an officer required to allow an arrest under the section.
Held: Lord Roskill said: ‘On the true construction of section 11(1) of the statute, what matters is the state of mind of the arresting officer . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
Cited – Keegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
Mentioned – Cumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Appeal from – O’Hara v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Oct-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
Cited – Coudrat v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2005
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the Customs and Excise. He was arrested and held accused of VAT fraud. Proceedings were discontinued. He had signed an application for . .
Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Cited – MB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
Cited – Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police CA 14-Feb-2001
Where a constable arrested someone based upon information on the police national computer, he was not to be held accountable for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, if the information upon which that had in turn been based, did not justify the . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Cited – Armstrong v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police CA 5-Dec-2008
The Chief Constable appealed against a finding that the claimant had been arrested for rape without reasonable grounds. A description of the rapist had been given which the claimant met in several respects, but from which he clearly differed in . .
Cited – Hayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimant had been arrested after a complaint of harassment. The officer then contacted the complainant who then withdrew his complaint. The officer went to visit the complainant to discuss it further. On his return the claimant was released from . .
Cited – Howarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
howarth_cmpQBD2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
fitzpatrick_compolQBD2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
Cited – McCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Cited – Lane and Another, Regina v SC 11-Jul-2018
The defendants were to be tried for allegedly sending funds abroad to support terrorism. The court now considered the meaning of the phrase ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ in the context of the anticipated use of the funds: ‘Does it mean that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.135035

Regina v Gray: CACD 2004

The court gave guidance on appropriate good character directions where a defendant had old convictions.

Rix LJ
[2004] EWCA Crim 1074
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – Mohammed, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2005
The court granted permission to appeal against a conviction for murder on grounds that related to the judge’s summing up in respect of provocation: ‘Although Holley is a decision of the Privy Council and Morgan Smith a decision of the House of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.242252

Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn: CA 1968

Answerability of Chief Constables

The constitutional status of the Commissioner had never been defined, either by statute or by the courts. By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law. The court considered the extent to which a court could interfere with decisions made by a Chief Constable.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Although the chief officers of police are answerable to the law, there are many fields in which they have a discretion with which the law will not interfere. For instance, it is for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, or the chief constable, as the case may be, to decide in any particular case whether inquiries should be pursued, or whether an arrest should be made, or a prosecution brought. It must be for him to decide on the disposition of his force and the concentration of his resources on any particular crime or area. No court can or should give him direction on such a matter. He can also make policy decisions and give effect to them, as, for instance, was often done when prosecutions were not brought for attempted suicide.’
. . And ‘No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement is on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.’
The decision as to the offence for which a person is to be prosecuted is a matter for the prosecuting authority, which has a wide discretion in the matter.

Lord Denning MR
[1968] 2 QB 118, [1968] 1 All ER 763, [1968] 2 WLR 893
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners Admn 18-Oct-2001
The function of the Director’s office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v Courts Admn 3-May-2006
The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, . .
Cited – North Yorkshire Police Authority, Regina (on The Application of) v The Independent Police Complaints Commission Admn 8-Jul-2010
No Review of IPCC’s Decision to Investigate
A complainant wanted the police force to investigate his mother’s treatment in a care home. When a decision was made that no criminal activity had been revealed, he asked the Police Authority to investigate, but they declined saying that the issue . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.183033

Peruzzo And Martens v Germany (Dec): ECHR 4 Jun 2013

ECHR Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Taking and retention of DNA profiles of convicted criminals for use in possible future criminal proceedings: inadmissible
Facts – The first applicant had been convicted of several drug-related offences when a district court ordered cellular material to be taken from him with a view to determining his DNA profile for identification purposes in any future criminal proceedings. This decision was reached in view of the seriousness of the offences he had committed and his negative criminal prognosis. In the second applicant’s case a district court ordered the taking of DNA samples on account of his repeated commission of violent offences. Pursuant to domestic law any cellular material obtained was to be used only for the purpose of establishing a DNA profile. The identity of the individual from whom the sample was obtained could not be disclosed to the experts charged with drawing up the profile, and they were furthermore under an obligation to take adequate measures to prevent any unauthorised use of any material examined. The cellular material itself had to be destroyed without delay once it was no longer needed for the purpose of establishing the DNA profile. Only the DNA profiles extracted from the cellular material could be kept in the Federal Criminal Police Office’s database and then only for a maximum of ten years, subject to regular review.
Law – Article 8: In recent years DNA records had doubtless made a substantial contribution to law enforcement and the fight against crime. Nevertheless, the protection of personal data was of fundamental importance for the enjoyment of the right to respect for private life. The domestic law therefore had to afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any use of personal data which might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8. In the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, which concerned the retention of the DNA records of two applicants who had not been convicted of a criminal offence, the Court had been struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention of DNA records in England and Wales that enabled the material to be retained without limit of time and irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence or the personal circumstances of the individual concerned. However, the applicants’ cases were to be distinguished from that case for several reasons. Firstly, under the domestic law DNA records could only be taken, stored and retained from persons who had been convicted of serious criminal offences and were likely to be the subject of criminal proceedings in the future. The domestic courts had based their findings that the offences committed by the applicants had reached the requisite threshold of gravity on the particular circumstances of each case and had provided relevant and sufficient reasons for their assumption that criminal investigations with respect to similar offences were likely to be conducted against them in the future so that the taking of DNA samples and the retention of the extracted DNA profiles were justified and proportionate. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the domestic law afforded appropriate safeguards against the blanket and indiscriminate taking and retention of DNA samples and profiles and adequate guarantees of the effective protection of retained personal data from misuse and abuse. Consequently, the domestic rules on the taking and retention of DNA material from persons convicted of offences reaching a certain level of gravity as applied in the case of the applicants had struck a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and fell within the respondent State’s acceptable margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, 4 December 2008, Information Note no. 114)

7841/08 57900/12 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 743
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514308

Newcombe v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 20 Jun 2013

The applicant had been charged with assault. On the day of the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence. The magistrate awarded costs from central funds, but limited it to the day of the hearing. The applicant appealed by case stated.
Held: Though the district judge had a discretion in making his order, such discetion had its limits, and the decision fell outside them: ‘The district judge imposed the restriction on entitlement to costs because in his view the Appellant had acted unreasonably in not indicating earlier than the day of the trial that he was prepared to be bound over to keep the peace.’ That view was untenable.

Hickinbottom J, Sir John Thomas P QBD
[2013] EWHC 2160 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Emohare v Thames Magistrates Court Admn 12-Mar-2009
The circumstances that lead to a defendant losing his entitlement to a defendant’s costs order if he is successful in his defence are narrow, to reflect the need to respect the presumption of innocence at common law and under Article 6 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514296

Allen v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Mar 2010

The applicant said that the fact that she had not been allowed to attend a bail hearing in person had infringed her article 5-3, 5-4, and 6 rights. She had been arrested and held in custody. The magistrates granted her bail, but she was held in custody after the prosecution immediately appealed. She had been brought late to the court from prison, but the judge had still refused to allow her to attend. She said that in such a matter a judge should properly see a person himself and make his own assessment.
Held: The respondent’s justification was insufficient. ‘the relevant domestic law qualifies a prosecution appeal against bail as a re-hearing of the application for bail, thereby entitling the judge hearing the appeal to remand the accused in custody or to grant bail subject to such conditions as he may deem appropriate . . It follows that the applicant should have been afforded the same guarantees at the prosecution’s appeal as at first instance. Though the Court is mindful of the inherent logistical difficulties involved in ensuring a detainee’s personal attendance at a court hearing, it finds no evidence of any compelling reasons in the present case which might have rendered the applicant’s presence undesirable or impracticable. To the contrary, it is accepted that the applicant’s representatives had made arrangements for her to be present at the court building on the day of the prosecution appeal hearing, and that no inconvenience would have been caused in allowing her to attend.’

Lech Garlicki, P
[2010] ECHR 420, [2011] Crim LR 147, (2010) 51 EHRR 22, 18837/06
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5-3 5-4 6, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 SI 2005/384
Citing:
Statement of facts – Allen v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2006
Statement of facts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513538

Rex v Kritz: 1949

The House discussed the extent of the direction required to be given to a jury as to the standard of proof required: ‘The only other point which has been seriously argued is that because the learned Common Sergeant told the jury that they must be reasonably satisfied, and did not use the words ‘satisfied beyond reasonable doubt’, he was not stating sufficiently the onus of proof. It would be a great misfortune, in criminal cases especially, if the accuracy or inaccuracy of a summing up were to depend upon whether or not the Judge or the Chairman had used a particular formula of words. It is not the particular formula of words that matters; it is the effect of the summing up. If the jury are charged whether in one set of words or in another and are made to understand that they have to be satisfied and must not return a verdict against a defendant unless they feel sure, and that the onus is all the time on the prosecution and not on the defence, then whether the learned Judge uses one form of language or whether he uses another is neither here nor there. In our opinion, there was a perfectly fair and a perfectly proper summing up by the learned Common Sergeant in this case. We do not think that any jury could have been left in any doubt as to what was their duty. Juries, in my humble opinion, are not such fools as they are very often thought to be. They know when they have been a short time in the jury box that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case and that they have to be fully and thoroughly satisfied, and they very seldom want guidance on that point. It is right that they should have it. It is right that they should be reminded that the onus is on the prosecution all the way through the case. It is right that they should be reminded in a criminal case that they must be fully satisfied of the guilt of the accused person and should not find a verdict against him unless they feel sure. That is the direction which I myself constantly give to juries when I am at assizes or at the Old Bailey. When once a judge begins to use the words reasonable doubt and tries to explain what is a reasonable doubt and what is not, he is much more likely to confuse them than if he tells them in plain language: ‘It is the duty of prosecution to satisfy you of the mans guilt’. I am not saying that the learned Common Sergeant used that formula of words, nor am I saying that it is to be preferred before all others, but what I do say is, and I am sure I can say it with the full assent of my brethren, that it is not the actual formula used that matters, but the effect of the summing up, and if the effect of the summing up is to convey to the jury what is their duty, that is enough.’

Lord Goddard
(1949) 33 Cr AppR 169, [1950] 1 KB 82
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Cited – Regina v Hepworth and Fearnley 1955
Lord Goddard discussed again the direction to the jury as to the standard of proof: ‘I think it is very unfortunate to talk to juries about reasonable doubt, because the explanations given of what is and what is not a reasonable doubt are so very . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.192062

Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 27 Nov 2001

That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be construed restrictively, and it was not to be applied where all that was involved was possible inconvenience for the court and distress for the detainee. The court has power to quash an order made by the Crown court where it is made without jurisdiction and there is no alternative remedy. The word ‘inappropriate’ must be construed restrictively: ‘A high degree of disablement or relevant disorder must be present. The section does not apply in a situation in which all that is involved is possible inconvenience for the court and inevitable distress for the defendant and others likely to be concerned in a trial, if a trial is held.’

Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Tomlinson
Times 17-Dec-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 968, [2002] QB 1169, [2002] 2 WLR 1430, [2002] MHLR 53, [2002] ACD 46,
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 51
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court QBD 4-Jul-2007
The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day . .
Cited – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Health

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.167113

Regina v Miao: CACD 17 Nov 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. His main defence had been that there had been no intention to kill, but the judge had refused to leave to the jury the possibility of provocation.
Held: There was evidence of potentially provoking conduct sufficient to be left to the jury, but that there was only a speculative possibility that the defendant may have lost his self-control. There was no evidence of a frenzied attack. The two defences were inconsistent, and the evidence of whether the defendant had been provoked was tenuous. Whether a defendant had been provoked should be treated on the same basis as whether the victim had caused provocation. The case of Rossiter had been overtaken by Acott.
Rose LJ VP said: ‘It is for the judge to decide if there is evidence of provoking conduct, a loss of self-control. If there is sufficient evidence it is a matter for the jury. If there is insufficient material to find as a reasonable rather than as any speculative possibility, that there was provoking conduct and loss of self-control, there is no issue that the judge should not leave provocation to the jury. The trial judge is in many cases better placed than this court to assess the quality and effect of the evidence which has been placed before the jury.’

Rose LJ, Leveson, Tugendhat JJ
Times 26-Nov-2003, Gazette 05-Feb-2004, [2003] EWCA Crim 3486
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Acott HL 12-Mar-1997
Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific . .
Cited – Regina v Rossiter CACD 1992
The defendant was charged with a murder. The very manner of the killing suggested that he was at the time of the killing in a state of uncontrolled frenzy. However, Russell LJ said: ‘We take the law to be that wherever there is material which is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Cited – Serrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.188247

SXH v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 6 Feb 2014

The claimant challenged being charged with an offence under the 2006 Act, saying that it engaged and interfered with her Article 8 Human Rights. A Somali national, she fled, claiming asylum here, but her travel documents were found to be false. All agreed that she could not have obtained valid documents in Somalia.
Held: Her appeal failed.
Pitchford LJ reviewed the authorities and accepted that article 8 could apply to a law criminalising behaviour which itself amounted to the exercise of a right protected by article 8, but section 25 of the 2006 Act did not interfere with rights protected by that article. It did not impede the appellant’s ability to claim asylum, and the possession of false identity documentation with intent to deceive at the point of border control was not an expression of personal autonomy.
He accepted that a decision to prosecute for an offence under section 25 might fall within article 8 if, for example, the prosecutor knew that there was no proper basis for the prosecution, but article 8 was not engaged by a decision to prosecute for a Convention-compliant offence in the absence of extreme circumstances. If, however, article 8 was engaged, the concession made that the appellant’s case passed the evidential test meant that in the absence of compelling circumstances personal to the appellant the public interest in prosecution was obvious. The outcome would be a matter for judicial decision and it was not for the prosecutor, when deciding to prosecute, to concern herself with questions of remand or likely sentence, which would be for the court to determine. He concluded therefore that if article 8 was engaged, there was no breach.

Pitchford LJ, Beatson LJ, Gloster LJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 90, [2014] 1 WLR 3238, [2014] WLR(D) 53
Bailii, WLRD
Identity Cards Act 2006 25, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.521051