Category: Criminal Practice

Legillon v France: ECHR 10 Jan 2013

ECHR Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Fair hearing
Assize court judgment containing statement of reasons for jury’s guilty verdict: violation; no violation
[This summary also covers the judgment in the case of Agnelet v. France, no. 61198/08, 10 January 2013]
Facts – In Agnelet, the applicant was sentenced in 2007 by the Assize Court to twenty years’ imprisonment for murder. He was the lover and lawyer of the murdered woman. Earlier proceedings against him had been discontinued or had led to an acquittal.
The applicant in Legillon was sentenced by the Assize Court of Appeal to fifteen years’ imprisonment for rape and sexual assault of minors under the age of fifteen within his immediate family.
The applicants complained of the lack of reasons given in the assize court judgments. They lodged appeals with the Court of Cassation, which were dismissed on the grounds that the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention had been satisfied.
Law – Article 6-1: The absence of reasons in a judgment, owing to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a lay jury, was not in itself contrary to the Convention. The specific features of the procedure before the assize courts with the participation of a lay jury had to be taken into account. It emerged from the Grand Chamber judgment in Taxquet v. Belgium that it should be clear from the indictment, together with the questions put to the jury, which pieces of evidence and factual circumstances among all those examined in the course of the trial the jurors had ultimately based their answers to the questions on, and that the questions themselves had to be precise and geared to the individual concerned.
In Agnelet, the applicant had been the only defendant and the case had been very complex. The indictment decision had been limited in scope because it had preceded the debates, which formed the crux of the proceedings. As to the factual information included in the indictment and its usefulness in understanding the guilty verdict against the applicant, it had of necessity left a number of areas of uncertainty: as the murder had not been positively established, the explanation for the victim’s disappearance had inevitably been based on hypothesis. As to the questions, they had been all the more important since, when deliberating, the judges and jury had not had access to the case file and had based their decision solely on the elements examined during the adversarial proceedings, albeit with the addition, in this case, of the decision indicting the accused. Furthermore, there had been a great deal at stake as the applicant had been sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment after earlier proceedings had been discontinued or had led to his acquittal. The subsidiary questions had been found to be devoid of purpose, so that only two questions had been put to the jury: the first was whether the applicant had intentionally murdered the victim and the second, if so, whether the murder had been premeditated. Considering the considerable complexity of the case, those questions had been succinctly worded and made no allusion to the specific circumstances. They had not referred to ‘any precise and specific circumstances that could have enabled the applicant to understand why he [had been] found guilty’. It was true that the public prosecutor had appealed, thus enabling the first-instance judgment to be reviewed. However, besides the fact that this judgment had not been accompanied by reasons either, the appeal had resulted in the formation of a new assize-court bench, made up of different judges, whose task was to re-examine the case file and reassess the factual and legal issues in the course of fresh hearings. It followed that the applicant had been unable to retrieve any pertinent information from the first-instance proceedings as to why he had been convicted on appeal by a different jury and different judges, especially since he had initially been acquitted. Thus, the applicant had not had sufficient guarantees to enable him to understand why he had been found guilty.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.
In Legillon, the applicant had been the sole defendant and the offences of which he was accused, despite their seriousness, had not been complex. The indictment decision that had preceded the hearings had been particularly detailed and the charges had then been debated for three days. The reclassification of the offences after the order committing the applicant for trial and before the questions to the jury emphasised that the latter’s decision was not to be confused with the indictment decision. This development, arising out of the debate, had necessarily allowed the accused to understand part of the jury’s reasoning. Twelve questions had been asked, forming a clear whole which left no ambiguity as to the charges against the applicant. Furthermore, specific questions concerning the aggravating circumstances of the father-daughter relationship and the age of the victims had enabled the jury to weigh precisely the applicant’s individual criminal responsibility. In sum, the applicant had been given sufficient guarantees to enable him to understand the guilty verdict against him.
Lastly, a reform had been put in place since the time of the events, following the enactment of legislation in August 2011 introducing a new provision (Article 365-1) into the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provided for the reasons for the assize court judgment to be set out in a ‘statement of reasons form’ appended to the list of questions. In the event of a conviction, the reasons had to be based on those facts examined in the course of the deliberations which had convinced the assize court in respect of each of the charges brought against the accused. This reform thus appeared, on the face of it, to significantly strengthen the guarantees against arbitrariness and to help the accused understand the court’s decision, as required by Article 6-1 of the Convention.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

Citations:

53406/10 – CLIN, [2013] ECHR 277

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472441

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AU: Admn 20 Jan 2009

The court upheld a 16-hour curfew imposed under a control order made under the 2005 Act.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 49 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.280055

Agnelet v France: ECHR 10 Jan 2013

Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Criminal charge
Fair hearing
Assize court judgment containing statement of reasons for jury’s guilty verdict: violation; no violation
[This summary also covers the judgment in the case of Legillon v. France, no. 53406/10, 10 January 2013]
Facts – In Agnelet, the applicant was sentenced in 2007 by the Assize Court to twenty years’ imprisonment for murder. He was the lover and lawyer of the murdered woman. Earlier proceedings against him had been discontinued or had led to an acquittal.
The applicant in Legillon was sentenced by the Assize Court of Appeal to fifteen years’ imprisonment for rape and sexual assault of minors under the age of fifteen within his immediate family.
The applicants complained of the lack of reasons given in the assize court judgments. They lodged appeals with the Court of Cassation, which were dismissed on the grounds that the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention had been satisfied.
Law – Article 6-1: The absence of reasons in a judgment, owing to the fact that the applicant’s guilt was determined by a lay jury, was not in itself contrary to the Convention. The specific features of the procedure before the assize courts with the participation of a lay jury had to be taken into account. It emerged from the Grand Chamber judgment in Taxquet v. Belgium that it should be clear from the indictment, together with the questions put to the jury, which pieces of evidence and factual circumstances among all those examined in the course of the trial the jurors had ultimately based their answers to the questions on, and that the questions themselves had to be precise and geared to the individual concerned.
In Agnelet, the applicant had been the only defendant and the case had been very complex. The indictment decision had been limited in scope because it had preceded the debates, which formed the crux of the proceedings. As to the factual information included in the indictment and its usefulness in understanding the guilty verdict against the applicant, it had of necessity left a number of areas of uncertainty: as the murder had not been positively established, the explanation for the victim’s disappearance had inevitably been based on hypothesis. As to the questions, they had been all the more important since, when deliberating, the judges and jury had not had access to the case file and had based their decision solely on the elements examined during the adversarial proceedings, albeit with the addition, in this case, of the decision indicting the accused. Furthermore, there had been a great deal at stake as the applicant had been sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment after earlier proceedings had been discontinued or had led to his acquittal. The subsidiary questions had been found to be devoid of purpose, so that only two questions had been put to the jury: the first was whether the applicant had intentionally murdered the victim and the second, if so, whether the murder had been premeditated. Considering the considerable complexity of the case, those questions had been succinctly worded and made no allusion to the specific circumstances. They had not referred to ‘any precise and specific circumstances that could have enabled the applicant to understand why he [had been] found guilty’. It was true that the public prosecutor had appealed, thus enabling the first-instance judgment to be reviewed. However, besides the fact that this judgment had not been accompanied by reasons either, the appeal had resulted in the formation of a new assize-court bench, made up of different judges, whose task was to re-examine the case file and reassess the factual and legal issues in the course of fresh hearings. It followed that the applicant had been unable to retrieve any pertinent information from the first-instance proceedings as to why he had been convicted on appeal by a different jury and different judges, especially since he had initially been acquitted. Thus, the applicant had not had sufficient guarantees to enable him to understand why he had been found guilty.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.
In Legillon, the applicant had been the sole defendant and the offences of which he was accused, despite their seriousness, had not been complex. The indictment decision that had preceded the hearings had been particularly detailed and the charges had then been debated for three days. The reclassification of the offences after the order committing the applicant for trial and before the questions to the jury emphasised that the latter’s decision was not to be confused with the indictment decision. This development, arising out of the debate, had necessarily allowed the accused to understand part of the jury’s reasoning. Twelve questions had been asked, forming a clear whole which left no ambiguity as to the charges against the applicant. Furthermore, specific questions concerning the aggravating circumstances of the father-daughter relationship and the age of the victims had enabled the jury to weigh precisely the applicant’s individual criminal responsibility. In sum, the applicant had been given sufficient guarantees to enable him to understand the guilty verdict against him.
Lastly, a reform had been put in place since the time of the events, following the enactment of legislation in August 2011 introducing a new provision (Article 365-1) into the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provided for the reasons for the assize court judgment to be set out in a ‘statement of reasons form’ appended to the list of questions. In the event of a conviction, the reasons had to be based on those facts examined in the course of the deliberations which had convinced the assize court in respect of each of the charges brought against the accused. This reform thus appeared, on the face of it, to significantly strengthen the guarantees against arbitrariness and to help the accused understand the court’s decision, as required by Article 6-1 of the Convention.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).

Citations:

61198/08 – CLIN, [2013] ECHR 276

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472433

Ayliffe And Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Feb 2009

The applicants were all either employees of or volunteers for Greenpeace. They were charged with a number of offences relating to the boarding of a cargo ship. They were acquitted but the trial judge refused to award the applicants their costs in the criminal proceedings. They complained that the refusal to award them their costs was incompatible with Article 6-2 of the Convention. They further complained that since their action in boarding the ship was also a protest, it was protected by Article 10. The application was withdrawn, and the case struck out.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

[2009] ECHR 431

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6-2 10

Citing:

See Also – Ayliffe And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 6-May-2008
The applicants are employees of or volunteers for Greenpeace. They boarded a cargo ship, preventing it continuing its voyage to harbour. They did so because they believed the cargo contained unlicensed animal feed and thus the importation was in . .
At Admin Court – Ayliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Apr-2005
The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472102

A, Regina (on The Application of) v Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court: Admn 26 Mar 2013

A had pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk in a public place, while having the charge of a child under the age of 7 years, contrary to section 2(1) of the Licensing Act 1902. The child in question was A’s daughter, to whom I shall refer as B. B was 2 and a half years old. A was an elected councillor and likely to be well known in the local community. The magistrates refused to make an order anonymising the case being not convinced that any damage would flow for the child.
Held: Section 39 of the CYP Act engages important, and competing, principles, namely, on the one hand, the private and family life of a child, and the best interests of that child, and, on the other hand, the freedom of the media to publish, and of the public to receive, information or comment, and the requirements of open justice.

Judges:

Picthford lJ, Kenneth Parker J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 659 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 177, [2014] 1 WLR 1489, [2013] EMLR 20, [2013] Crim LR 763, (2013) 177 JP 377, 177 JP 377

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39, European Convention on Human Rights 8 10

Citing:

Cited – A Child v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust QBD 4-Mar-2011
The court gave its reasons for making an order preventing identification of a child claimant in professional negligence proceedings.
Held: By virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court, as a public authority, must take account of these . .
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 – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Cited – 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 – JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 31-Jan-2011
Principles on Request for Anonymity Order
The defendant appealed against an order granting the anonymisation of the proceeedings.
Held: The critical question is whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing a report of proceedings which identifies a party by name, . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 19-Apr-2011
The claimant appealed against refusal of an injunction to restrain the defendant newspaper from publishing his name in connection with a forthcoming article. The claimant had had an affair with a co-worker. Both were married. The relationship ended, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472037

Dhaliwal, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Mar 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, saying that the court had failed to allow him to raise properly expert doubts as to the prosecution evidence. He sought to challenge the effect of preservatives on the sample of blood as tested by the prosecution. The prosecution expert had only given hearsay evidence as to the testing of the blood sample by an assistant.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘the question really is whether, at the completion of the case, the state of the evidence was such that the court (in this case the district judge) could properly reach the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant. ‘ and ‘in my judgment it was not necessary, having regard to the way in which the issue had been raised by the defence, for [the prosecution] to prove that the preservative had been added and in any quantity. The nature of the issue which had been raised by the defence merely went to whether or not the due and proper procedures had been followed at this laboratory for the purposes of the analysis being carried out professionally. ‘

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1149 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Rutter 1976
A defendant who wished to challenge the analysis of a properly taken and analysed part specimen of blood had to challenge it by analysis of his own part specimen. A defendant who sought to establish that the part specimen analysed on behalf of the . .
Cited – Gregory v Director of Public Prosecution QBD 19-Feb-2002
An analyst had given evidence. The defence called a professor, a toxicologist, who gave expert evidence in relation to what he said were the possible consequences which could have occurred, having regard to the evidence which the prosecution had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.242286

Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000

(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

[2000] ECHR 91

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1

Citing:

Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Conjoined Hearing – Fitt v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .

Cited by:

Conjoined Hearing – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .
Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471640

Redcar v Dady and Others: QBD 8 Mar 2013

The defendants had faced charges of conspiracy to defraud. After the charges were dismissed, the prosecutor now sought a voluntary bill of indictment for their revival.
Held: The request was refused. Exceptional circumstances are required to reverse the effect of such a ruling. And good reasons are required to permit a common law conspiracy charge to be maintained in the absence of a charge of conspiracy under s.267. Neither was present here.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 475 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471560

Pham v The District Court for The Southern District of New York: Admn 13 Dec 2012

Application for bail in extradition proceedings made pursuant to section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, inserted by amendments made to the Police and Justice Act 2006.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3890 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471271

Her Majesty’s Advocate v CAM: ScSf 21 Nov 2012

The appellant challenged his conviction saying that there had been too long a delay in his trial.

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, Lady Cosgrove

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 161, 2013 SLT 126, 2013 SCCR 67, 2013 GWD 1-21, 2013 SCL 128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471091

Horncastle And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Jan 2013

The claimants alleged unfair in their trial after admission in evidence of statements of witnesses who had died before the trial.

Citations:

4184/10 – HECOM, [2013] ECHR 146

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

At SC – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .

Cited by:

See Also – Horncastle And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2014
The applicants alleged that the admission of witness statements from the deceased alleged victims at their trial rendered the proceedings unfair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471024

Brewer, Regina (on the Application of) v Supreme Court Costs Office: Admn 27 Jul 2006

The defendant had been acquitted. Orders had been made both for payment of his legal costs, and also for re-imbursement of his own costs. The defendant was accused of serious fraud, and had engaged an American attorney to assist him before instructing English solicitors.
Held: It was preferable for such costs applications to be made and heard together. Once the costs officer accepted that some re-imbursement should be made, he was obliged to conduct some investigation as to what had been done. The judge had carried out only a broad brush assessment. ‘when a determining officer or a Costs Judge is faced with an application of this sort under a defendant’s costs order, his first task is to ascertain whether the expenditure was ‘properly incurred . . in the proceedings’ (section 16(6)) and whether it is work that has been ‘reasonably done’ (Regulation 7(1A)). In addition, Regulation 7(2) requires the appropriate authority to take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case ‘including the nature, importance, complexity or difficulty of the work and the time involved’. There was a real risk of injustice to the defendant, and the decision must be revisited.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1955 (Admin), Times 16-Aug-2006, [2007] 1 Costs LR 20

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman and Hill CA 18-Jun-2002
The court considered the significance of CPR 52.13(2): ‘The restriction on second appeals is important because Parliament has made it clear that it wishes pretrial disputes in civil litigation to be dealt with, on the whole, at a level lower than . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
Cited – Regina v Supreme Court Taxing Office Ex Parte John Singh and Co QBD 3-May-1995
A Taxing Master’s refusal of a certificate for point of principle on taxation is reviewable. Henry LJ: ‘Counsel for the Taxing Master conceded that such a jurisdiction existed but submitted that it should be restricted to cases where there had been . .
Cited – Regina v Bedlington Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Wilkinson Admn 21-Oct-1999
In addition to assessment of his solicitor’s bill of costs, the acquitted defendant claimed pounds 3,971.50 as ‘the costs of a specialist graphics contractor’ who had been instructed and paid directly by the defendant.
Held: Moses J stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.243984

F (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Knowsley Magistrates Court: Admn 15 Mar 2006

On its first application the CPS requested that the trial date be vacated because they had not received a full file of evidence. That application was refused. The case remained listed for trial that afternoon. In the afternoon the prosecution was represented by a different prosecutor who successfully renewed the application for an adjournment. The application was identical to the application made in the morning.
Held: The decision was quashed. The magistrates were in error in revisiting their decision to adjourn. Sullivan J said that the issue for the district judge was whether there had been a change of relevant circumstances between the morning and afternoon. The prosecution had conceded that there was no change of circumstances. Latham LJ agreed.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Sullivan J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 695 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.241731

PF, Regina v: CACD 15 Mar 2012

Application for leave to appeal against conviction in which the main issue concerns the powers of the Crown Court upon a retrial.

Judges:

Jackson LJ, Irwin J, Rook QC HHJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 720, [2012] 1 WLR 3133, [2012] 2 Cr App R 13, [2012] WLR(D) 83

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468986

Regina v MacPherson: CACD 27 Jul 2005

The court considered the procedures to be followed for the giving of evidence by persons with reduced mental competence.

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Forbes, Calvert-Smith JJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 3605, [2006] 1 Cr App R 30, [2007] Crim LR 504

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v F CACD 14-Mar-2013
The crown sought leave to appeal against a terminating ruling. The defendant was accused of rape and sexual assault against his sister, profoundly deaf and with learning difficulties. The judge had found the victim to not be competent to give . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468977

Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others: Admn 28 Jun 2006

The claimants challenged the terms of restrictions placed upon them under the Act.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1623 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prevention of Terroism Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others CA 1-Aug-2006
The applicants had challenged non-derogating control orders restricting his liberty on the basis that he was suspected of terrorist intentions. The Home Secretary appealed an order finding the restrictions to be unlawful.
Held: The Home . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
At First Instance – Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.243046

O’Neill v The United Kingdom: ECHR 13 Nov 2012

Citations:

41516/10 – HECOM, [2012] ECHR 1995

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 5-Jun-2009
The appellants were charged with murder. They appealed against an extension of time given to allow the prosecution to proceed.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another SCS 17-Jul-2009
Decision as to preliminary issues raised. . .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 14-Jan-2010
. .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 2-Jul-2010
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 8-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 19-Apr-2012
. .

Cited by:

See Also – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467008

Ward, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 19 Mar 2020

Appeal seeking to have the conviction set aside, on the ground of that the procedure was unfair in that, he submits, he was convicted for an offence for which he was not charged and/or an offence the particulars of which he was not made aware.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 680 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.649129

Bourne v Scarborough Magistrates’ Court: Admn 10 Nov 2017

Whether legal adviser nominated as case manager had the power to adjourn a hearing

Judges:

Holroyde LJ, Dingemans J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2828 (Admin), [2018] Crim LR 258, (2018) 182 JP 49, [2018] 4 WLR 29, 182 JP 49, [2017] WLR(D) 854

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure Rules 3.5(2)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.599402

In re X (Restraint Order: Payment out): QBD 22 Apr 2004

A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property restrained was not reduced. This was not such a case.

Judges:

David J

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-2004

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Peters CA 1988
After the defendant was arrested for drugs offences a restraint order was made to prevent dissipation of his assets. Orders were made to vary the restraint to allow payment of his sons school fees, and in family proceedings for a payment to his . .
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
Cited – In re G QBD 30-Jul-2001
. .
Cited – In Re P (Restraint Order) (Sale of Assets) CA 2-Aug-1999
An interim receiver under the Act was primarily appointed to preserve the assets of the defendant to prevent dissipation, and not to maximise them so as to realise greater sums for the purposes of any eventual confiscation order. He was answerable . .
Cited – In re W 15-Nov-1990
Where assets had been seized in criminal proceedings, the court had power to order a payment to creditors only where the value of the assets would not be reduced. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.199325

HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another: SCS 17 Jul 2009

Decision as to preliminary issues raised.

Judges:

Lord Kinclaven

Citations:

[2010] ScotHC HCJ – 03

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 5-Jun-2009
The appellants were charged with murder. They appealed against an extension of time given to allow the prosecution to proceed.
Held: The appeal failed. . .

Cited by:

See also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 14-Jan-2010
. .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 2-Jul-2010
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 8-Feb-2012
. .
See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 19-Apr-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466315

Mfongbong Umoh, Regina v: 1987

Citations:

(1987) 84 Cr App R 138

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Prudential Plc and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Admn 14-Oct-2009
The company had obtained legal advice but had taken it from their accountants. The Revenue sought its disclosure, and the company said that as legal advice it was protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: The material was not protected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.376224

Regina v Stafford Justices ex parte Customs and Excise Commissioners: 1991

The court confirmed the continued right of private prosecution. Watkins LJ set out section 6 of the 1985 Act and observed: ‘These provisions clearly envisage that persons other than the Director may institute proceedings and prosecute. As Mr Lawson said, and I accept, it would indeed be surprising if that were not so. One has only to consider the role of the Post Office, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue Commissioners, local authorities, the RSPCA, apart altogether from the Customs and Excise Commissioners, in the process of investigation and prosecution of offences to appreciate immediately that the Crown Prosecution Service, under severe strain as it is, could not bear their burdens too. Parliament cannot possibly, in my view, have intended to bring about such a consequence.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 339, [1991] 2 All ER 201, [1990] Crim LR 742, [1990] 3 WLR 656, (1990) 154 JP 865

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 3(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 14-Nov-2012
The appellant had twice begun private prosecutions only to have them taken over by the CPS and discontinued. He complained that a change in their policy on such interventions interfered with his statutory and constitutional right to bring such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.377731

Regina v Pan; Regina v Sawyer: 29 Jun 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy and Criminal Code prohibition on disclosure of information about ‘proceedings of the jury’ consistent with principles of fundamental justice – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Juries – Rule of jury secrecy – Common law rule of jury secrecy providing that evidence concerning jury deliberations is inadmissible on appeal to impeach jury’s verdict – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Criminal law – Juries – Disclosure of jury proceedings – Criminal Code prohibiting disclosure of information about ‘proceedings of the jury’ except where disclosure is in context of obstruction of justice proceedings involving a juror – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Abuse of process – Fundamental justice – Double jeopardy – Whether mistrial improperly declared at end of accused’s second trial – Whether proceedings against accused should have been stayed at outset of third trial – Whether holding of third trial violated principle against double jeopardy – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(h).
Criminal law – Charge to jury – Reasonable doubt – Accused convicted of first degree murder – Whether pre-Lifchus charge on reasonable doubt in substantial compliance with principles set out in Lifchus.
Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy and Criminal Code prohibition on disclosure of information about ‘proceedings of the jury’ consistent with principles of fundamental justice – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Juries – Rule of jury secrecy – Common law rule of jury secrecy providing that evidence concerning jury deliberations is inadmissible on appeal to impeach jury’s verdict – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Criminal law – Juries – Disclosure of jury proceedings – Criminal Code prohibiting disclosure of information about ‘proceedings of the jury’ except where disclosure is in context of obstruction of justice proceedings involving a juror – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Abuse of process – Fundamental justice – Double jeopardy – Whether mistrial improperly declared at end of accused’s second trial – Whether proceedings against accused should have been stayed at outset of third trial – Whether holding of third trial violated principle against double jeopardy – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(h).
Criminal law – Charge to jury – Reasonable doubt – Accused convicted of first degree murder – Whether pre-Lifchus charge on reasonable doubt in substantial compliance with principles set out in Lifchus.

Judges:

McLachlin CJ and L’Heureux-Dube, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ

Citations:

(2001) 147 OAC 1, (2001) 85 CRR (2d) 1, (2001) 43 CR (5th) 203, (2001) 155 CCC (3d) 97, (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 577, [2001] 2 SCR 344

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – HM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd Admn 13-May-2009
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.343073

Regina v Leicester Crown Court (Her Honour Judge Mayor QC) ex parte Kaur: CA 31 Mar 1997

The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of leave to bring judicial review of a decision to estreat her recognisance given for the attendance of her son at court. The request had been out of time, and the judge had found her culpable as to his non-attendance and unreliable as a witness. She wished to say that the surety given was defective.
Held: The application was hopeless. Leave refused.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 31(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Crown Court Woodgreen, ex parte Howe QBD 1991
The applicant has no right to make more than one application under section 31(1). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141762

Price v Cheshire East Borough Council: Admn 11 Oct 2012

Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Justices for the area of South Cheshire, who decided that the appellant should be committed to the Crown Court to stand trial on two charges. It is said that the Justices erred in law in the manner in which they reached their decision to commit for trial. The appellant was said to have used false or misleading information. The offence was triable either way. No sentencing guidelines applied to to the allegation. The appellant objected to the use of gudelines for fraud, since that offence had a much greater sentence available.
Held: The Justices wrong to approach the matter on the basis of the fraud guidelines, and looking at the circumstances of this offence, as known to the Justices, it is a case where they would have been entirely justified in taking the view that a court might well, once the full circumstances were gone into and whether or not there was a plea of guilty, have formed the view that a custodial sentence or a community sentence, rather than a fine, or indeed a fine in excess of the maximum which they were empowered to impose, would have been appropriate.
The case was remitted to the magistrates for reconsideration.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2927 (Admin), (2012) 176 JP 697, [2013] ACD 6, [2013] CTLC 99, [2012] WLR(D) 275, [2013] 1 WLR 1232

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Stone and Moore CACD 24-Jan-2012
There had been a charge of conspiracy to defraud, but that had not been pursued and instead there had been convictions for counts charged under the 2008 regulations. The sentences imposed by the Recorder were based upon what was said to be analogous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465201

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 evidence, depending on the jury’s view, was relevant to an issue in the trial ‘disentitled’ the appellant to a good character direction. The judge’s analysis of the issue was unduly restrictive and did not address the probative value of the appellant’s ‘good’ character. It deprived the appellant of a direction to which he was entitled in the circumstances . . the judge should have given a modified good character direction which made reference both to the jury’s judgment of the appellant’s credibility and the absence in his record of any propensity to commit sexual offences. In our judgment there was no danger that such a direction would fail to meet the requirements of common sense.’

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Underhill, Simon JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2033

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

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 – Regina v Gray CACD 30-Apr-2004
The court examined the authorities as to good chracter directions where a defendant had previous convictions. Rix LJ said: ‘In our judgment the authorities discussed above entitled us to state the following principles as applicable in this context: . .
Cited – Regina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
Cited – Regina v Durbin CACD 1995
The appellant had been convicted of the importation of 875 kilos of cannabis. He had spent convictions but more significantly he admitted in interview being engaged in smuggling other contraband goods. Furthermore, he admitted telling lies to the . .
Cited – Regina v Sweet-Escott 1971
It is the duty of the trial judge to prevent cross examination about a subject which can only go to the credit of a witness if the truth of the matter suggested would not, in his opinion, affect the credibility of the witness concerned. Lawton J . .
Cited – Regina v Challenger and Nye 1982
When the jury is being directed to consider the issue of character, whether as to propensity or credibility, a primary consideration is that they should not be misled. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Zoppola-Barraza CACD 6-May-1994
The appellant had been convicted of importing cocaine. He had no previous convictions. However, he gave evidence that he had been smuggling gold and jewels into the UK so as to avoid duty and VAT. The Recorder directed the jury to have regard to the . .
Cited – Regina v Martin (David Paul) CACD 5-Jan-2000
Where a defendant had previous cautions, a judge was not obliged to give a good character direction. The court could distinguish between the two halves of the standard direction, and to include the credibility part of the direction, but to omit the . .
Cited – Regina v PD CACD 26-Jan-2012
The appellant was charged with offences of violence against his wife. He also faced charges of anal rape of his wife. In the course of evidence the appellant, who otherwise had no previous convictions, admitted using violence towards his wife during . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464685

Cook and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency: Admn 27 Jul 2010

The claimants sought review of a decision of the Serious Organised Crime Agency to seize documents which have been the subject of the unlawful execution of a search warrant, purporting to act for this record seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. SOCA, with identical powers to those of the police, acknowledged that the original seizure following the execution of search warrants was unlawful by reason of failure to comply with the law governing the drafting and execution of the warrants, but maintained that section 19 of PACE permits the subsequent seizure which they undertook.
Held: SOCA were not entitled to use section 19 of PACE to keep documents that had been unlawfully seized simply by seeking a receipt for their return.

Judges:

Leveson LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2119 (Admin), [2011] 1 WLR 144, [2010] Lloyds Rep FC 545, [2010] ACD 88

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(a)(iii), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 343(2)(b) 345

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 by:

Cited – Cummins, Regina (on The Application of) v Manchester Crown Court Admn 27-Jul-2010
The claimant sought a declaration that search warrants on his premises issued under money laundering suspicions were unlawful. The warrants did not comply with the 1984 Act, having failed satisfactorily to specify their purpose. Limited offers had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.421507

Bullard v The Queen: PC 1957

The question was whether there was evidence on which the jury could have found a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation rather than the verdict of murder which had been returned.
Held: There is naturally a tendency for an appellate court to substitute its view of the facts for a possible view which might have been entertained by a properly directed jury. However, it had ‘long been settled law that if on the evidence, whether of the prosecution or of the defence, there is any evidence of provocation fit to be left to a jury, and whether or not this issue has been specifically raised at the trial by counsel for the defence and whether or not the accused has said in terms that he was provoked, it is the duty of the judge, after a proper direction, to leave it open to the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter if they are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was unprovoked.’
and ‘Every man on trial for murder has the right to have the issue of manslaughter left to the jury if there is any evidence upon which such a verdict can be given. To deprive him of this right must of necessity constitute a grave miscarriage of justice and it is idle to speculate what verdict the jury would have reached.’
‘But there is no magic formula and provided that on a reading of the summing up as a whole the jury are left in no doubt where the onus lies no complaint can properly be made.’

Judges:

Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1957] AC 635, (1958) 42 Cr App R 1, [1957] 3 WLR 656

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Approved – Regina v Hopper CCA 1914
Lord Reading CJ said: ‘We do not assent to the suggestion that as the defence throughout the trial was accident, the judge was justified in not putting the question as to manslaughter. Whatever the line of defence adopted by counsel at the trial of . .

Cited by:

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 – 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 – 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 – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Approved – Regina v Porritt CCA 1961
Ashworth J said: ‘As has already been said, the issue of manslaughter was not raised at the trial, but there is ample authority for the view that notwithstanding the fact that a particular issue is not raised by the defence, it is incumbent upon the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.211363

Steward v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 30 Jul 2003

Magistrates announced that there was no case to answer, but then agreed evidence was put before them which clearly undermined the basis of that decision.
Held: It was open to the magistrates to correct their mistake immediately. The appellant’s contention was highly technical. An error had been agreed by the defendant’s solicitor and admitted by the Magistrates, and the Essex Justices case did not apply.

Judges:

Maurice Kay, Crane JJ

Citations:

Times 25-Sep-2003, [2003] EWHC 2251 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 592

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Regina v Essex Justices ex parte Final QBD 1963
Magistrates had announced a case to be proved, but had then been persuaded to reconsider their verdict.
Held: The magistrates became functus officio, and had no remaining jurisdiction to substitute a different verdict, either way. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186520

Abacha, Bagudu v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Federal Republic of Nigeria Interested Party: Admn 18 Oct 2001

Attempts were being made by the Federal Government of Nigeria to recover moneys alleged to have been taken fraudulently from the state. They sought assistance from the UK, and the claimants sought details of that request. The statute provided that assistance should be confidential. The claimants asserted that since the fact of the request had been made public, the contents should be also in order to remedy a procedural unfairness. The request complied with the statutory requirements, and had to be accepted. No criminal proceedings were to follow. The court rejected the assertion of unfairness. It was important not to allow international requests of this nature not to be abused, but there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to seek any undertaking as to the use of material obtained, and any question of abuse was for the courts of the country concerned.

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice TuckeyCitations: [2001] EWHC Admin 787

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Zadari v Secretary of State Admn 2001
In exercising his discretion on whether to transmit requested information to a foreign government, the respondent had to weigh all competing interests to safeguard against an abuse of the international mutual assistance process by foreign . .

Cited by:

Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.166640

Power v Provincial Insurance: CA 18 Feb 1997

The insured had failed to disclose an earlier drink driving conviction on applying for insurance over five years later. The insurers refused cover on an accident. The plaintiff said that the conviction was spent under the 1974 Act. The endorsement remained ‘effective’ on his licence for 11 years should he be convicted again. The court asked whether an endorsement was part of the penalty and rehabilitated.
Held: The endorsement was a penalty within the meaning of the section and should have been disclosed.

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Pill LJ, Mummery LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1037

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1972, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – River Wear Commissioners v Adamson HL 1877
It was not necessary for there to be an ambiguity in a statutory provision for a court to be allowed to look at the surrounding circumstances.
As to the Golden Rule of interpretation: ‘It is to be borne in mind that the office of the judge is . .
Cited – Bell v Ingham QBD 1968
The plaintiff was charged with an attempting to commit an offence of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. The Justices fined him andpound;10 and ordered that the particulars of the conviction should be endorsed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Insurance

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141433

Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others: Admn 9 Aug 2012

The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence against him would have been obtained by torture.

Judges:

Hughes LJ Silber J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2349 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omar Othman v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-May-2009
Statement of Facts. The applicant resisted deportation to Jordan to face trial on on terrorism related charges, saying that there was a real risk that the evidence to be presented against him would include evidence obtained by torture. . .
At ECHR – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
ECHR PR – Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2012
(Press Release) Diplomatic assurances will protect Abu Qatada from torture but he cannot be deported to Jordan while there remains a real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him. . .
SIAC Bail application – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 6-Feb-2012
Application for bail. . .
SIAC – Othman v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 28-May-2012
SIAC (Deportation – Bail Application – Refused) The applicant was held in immigration detention pending a proposed deportation to his native Jordan to face retrial on terrorist charges. Having resisted his . .

Cited by:

See Also – Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd and Another v Drivers Jonas (A Firm) CA 8-Nov-2012
The defendants appealed against the quantum of damages awarded against them for professional negligence in the valuation of a factory outlet centre. They said that in calculating damages for the trust claimants, the court should allow for the tax . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SIAC 12-Nov-2012
The applicant challenged his proposed deportation to Jordan to face perrorism related charges. He said that there was a real risk that the evidence used against him would have been obtained by torture.
Held: His appeal was allowed . .
Admn Reasons – Othman (Aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Mar-2013
The appellant sought the deportation of the respondent to his home country of Jordan to face trial on terrorism related charges. The respondent said that evidence against him would have been obtained by torture, and challenged re-assurances accepted . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 8-Feb-2018
Bail conditions only after detention
B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463651

Comingersoll S A v Portugal: ECHR 6 Apr 2000

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
When assessing the affect on fairness of proceedings becoming unreasonably extended in time, the court should look at the particular complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute.

Citations:

19, ECHR 2000-IV, 35382/97, [2000] ECHR 159, [2000] ECHR 160

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Skawinska v Poland ECHR 16-Sep-2003
The applicant complained that criminal proceedings against her in Poland had not been concluded within a reasonable time. The proceedings began in 1992, and were concluded only in 2000. The respondent contended that in large part the delays were of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.165857

Canning v Criminal Cases Review Commission: Admn 14 Oct 2019

Renewed oral application for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer the relevant conviction of the applicant in 1995 to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Judges:

His Honour Judge Davis-White QC

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2693 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.642705

BA, Regina v: CACD 11 Jul 2012

Prosecution appeal against a terminating ruling relating to the ambit of s.80 of the 1984 Act which specifies the circumstances in which a wife may be compelled to give evidence against her husband.

Citations:

[2012] 1 WLR 3378, [2012] 2 Cr App R 34, (2012) 176 JP 615, 2012] WLR(D) 199, [2012] EWCA Crim 1529

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462538

Berry v Post Office Investigation Department: CA 11 Nov 1996

The claimant’s property was raided twice, and stamps removed. The first search led to charges which were dropped. He sought the return of all the property removed. In later proceedings it was said that a new claim was being made which was res judicata.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. There was no proper reason why the items now claimed should not have been dealt with in the prior hearing.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 926

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd PC 1975
Restraint of Second Action as Abuse
Hong Kong – A company purchased a property from the defendant bank who had taken it back into possession from a former borrower. The company itself fell into arrears, the property was taken back again and resold. The company sought a declaration . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140793

Melvin West: ECJ 28 Jun 2012

ECJ Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence – Article 28 – Handing later – ‘string’ of European Arrest Warrants – Execution of a third European arrest warrant against the same person – Definition of” Member State of enforcement ‘- Consent to surrender – urgent preliminary ruling procedure.

Judges:

JN Cunha Rodrigues, President

Citations:

C-192/12, [2012] EUECJ C-192/12 – PPU, [2012] EUECJ C-192/12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA

European, Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461903

Barnsley Rioters’ Case: 1830

Two approvers on one indictment not allowed. Parke J, refused to allow two persons to go before the grand jury as ‘approvers’ on one indictment, observing, that it was ‘ unusual to allow more than one.’ He asked if there was any precedent for two ; and, being answered in the negative, he refused to establish one. N.B. On the following day, it appearing that they were to give evidence on separate indictments, and for separate offences, though of the same nature and arising out of the same occasion, he granted the application.

Judges:

Parke J

Citations:

[1830] EngR 21, (1830) 1 Lewin 5, (1830) 168 ER 939 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.320901

Fitt v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Feb 2000

(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.

Judges:

Wildhaber P

Citations:

29777/96, [2000] ECHR 89, (2000) 30 EHRR 480, [2000] Po LR 10

Links:

Bailii, Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Conjoined Hearing – Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence. . .
Conjoined Hearing – Amann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
(Grand Chamber) Complaint as to non-disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Held: The holding and use of the information in question had not been ‘in accordance with the law’, as required by article 8(2), because of the absence from the relevant . .
Conjoined Hearing – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.471750

Dzankovic v Germany: ECHR 8 Dec 2009

The applicant complained that his request for his chosen representative to be designated official defence counsel had been refused.
Held: The interests of justice did not require that the applicant’s chosen counsel be appointed official defence counsel. The application was declared inadmissible. The applicant was still represented by the same counsel whom he wished to have designated as official defence counsel. The reason behind the request related to the payment of counsel’s fees from public resources. But that made no difference. What was important was, in the words of the judgment, that he had not put forward ‘any grounds making a different procedural approach necessary to ensure [that his] rights of . . defence’ were secured.

Citations:

6190/09, [2009] ECHR 2172

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Maguire, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) SC 21-Mar-2018
The appellant faced a criminal trial. He was granted legal aid for two counsel. He asked for two particular junior counsel, but the certificate required him to instruct leading counsel and a junior. He objected that this deprived him of the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.392810

Kumari v Jalal: CA 15 Oct 1996

A second committal for the breach of a court order requires a new hearing and a new order. When a mandatory order is not complied with there is but a single breach.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1996, [1997] 1 WLR 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.82855

Williamson, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another: Admn 29 May 2012

The defendant appealed against fhis conviction, saying that his defence solicitor had been incompetent. In particular if certain video surveillance evidence had been properly examined it would have exonerated him.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Burnett J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1444 (Admin), [2012] Crim LR 975, [2012] 2 Cr App R 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459879

Tuthill v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 15 Nov 2011

The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that the evidence was obtained by means of an unlawful search by an officer.

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P BD, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3760 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marshall v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 17-Jun-2015
A car was seen speeding. Husband and wife each said that they did not know who was driving it in response to notices requiring that information. Mrs M now appealed against her conviction under section 172. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459727

Stringfellow, Regina v: CACD 6 Oct 2008

The clerk of the Crown Court had erred when taking the jury’s verdict in failing to identify whether the verdict was unanimous or by a majority.
Held: It was preferable for counsel to intervene at the time and correct the mistake than to take it to appeal. In this case the court was satisfied that the verdict had been unanimous, and the appeal failed.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 2825, Times 14-Nov-2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.278326

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Briggs-Price and Another: CA 14 Jun 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 568

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal From – Briggs-Price, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The applicant appealed against a confiscation order made on the basis of evidence obtained for and given in a trial that he had profited from the importation of cannabis. He had not faced trial on an associated charge, but had been convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.253456

RT and Another, Regina v: CACD 13 Feb 2020

‘This appeal raises an issue about whether the trial judge was entitled to continue a trial in circumstances where a prosecution witness, aged 16 years who had been diagnosed with ADHD, who had given evidence in chief and who had been cross-examined in part on behalf of one appellant, became distressed and refused to continue to give evidence.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Dingemans

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Crim 155

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.648850

Regina v Cross (Patrick): CACD 1973

The court had allowed an appeal against sentence; but later the same day the defendant was brought back because the court thought that he had not been frank in answering questions about another offence.
Held: The court set aside its original judgment and directed a rehearing, at which it was held that there was indeed power to alter the original decision.
Lord Widgery CJ explained the limits of the rule: ‘It is well recognised that a court of record has power to alter a judgment or order which it has made within certain limits. The limits set in general appear to be that the power to alter the judgment ceases when the judgment is, in the words of the civil courts, drawn up. In other words, the general principle seems to be that once the judgment has been finally recorded, then the inherent power to vary it is lost. We are satisfied from the arguments before us, and indeed from our own experience, that that rule has been extensively applied in the criminal courts in the past . . We think that the same principles ought to apply to this court, and so we have investigated, partly with the assistance of counsel and partly by making our own inquiries within the internal organisation of the court, to determine the appropriate equivalent moment at which proceedings in this court reach that degree of finality when no further change in the decision of the court is possible . . When a judgment of this court is given, the registrar is required by the rules to notify the decision to a variety of people. By rule 15 of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1968 it is provided as follows:
‘(1) The registrar shall, as soon as practicable, serve notice of any determination by the court or by any judge of the court under section 31 of the Act on any appeal or application by an appellant on – (a) the appellant; (b) the Secretary of State; (c) any person having custody of the appellant; (d) in the case of an appellant detained under the Mental Health Act 1959 the responsible authority. (2) The registrar shall, as soon as practicable, serve notice on the proper officer of the court of trial of the order of the court disposing of an appeal or application for leave to appeal.
It is to be observed that the formality required of the registrar under that rule is in no sense the making of a record. What the registrar is required to do, and does do, when he performs his duties under rule 15, is to give notice to interested parties of what the order of the court has been.
Accordingly, it does not seem to us that it would be right or appropriate to pick upon the moment when these notices are issued as being the moment when the record is made up, because they are, as I have endeavoured to describe, in no sense a record. However, by order of the Lord Chancellor following the creation of the Crown Court, there is published a Crown Court Manual which contains specific provision as to what is to be done by the court of trial on receipt of notification from the registrar under rule 15. What the Crown Court Manual requires is that the officer of the court of trial on receiving notice of the determination of this court from the registrar, shall record the determination so transmitted to him.
There is, therefore, for the first and really the only time the making of a formal record of the determination of this court, and we think that the proper interpretation of the position, so far as the matter presently under review is concerned, is that the court of trial is the court that maintains a formal record of proceedings in this court, and it is enabled to maintain such records by the registrar performing the duty cast upon him under rule 15. Consequently when the question arises, as it arises in this case, of the court’s power to make a change in any decision or order which it has pronounced, the vital question is whether that decision or order has been recorded by the proper officer at the court of trial pursuant to the directions to which I have just referred’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1973] 1 QB 937

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Rules 1968 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Blackwood, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2012
The defendant had succeeded in his appeal against a rape conviction. After the case, and his release, the prosecution sought a retrial. The defendant now argued that the court was functus officio.
Held: An order on an appeal becomes final when . .
Cited – Regina v Daniel CACD 1977
The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, which had been refused by the single judge. He instructed solicitors who wrote to the court to advise that they intended to instruct Counsel on the renewed application. Due to an . .
Cited – Yasain, Regina v CACD 16-Jul-2015
The Court was asked as to the powers of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to re-open an appeal to correct an error which is said to have caused real injustice in that the error led to the quashing of a sentence lawfully imposed in the Crown . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.451796

Regina v Mealey and Sheridan: CACD 1974

A claim of entrapment into an offence is not a defence in Engish law. The court adopted a definition contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers in 1928 in which an ‘agent provocateur’ was taken to mean ‘a person who entices another to commit an express breach of the law which he would not otherwise have committed and then proceeds or informs against him in respect of such offence’.
An application for leave to appeal is not itself an appeal under section 5(1) of the 1968 Act.

Citations:

[1974] 60 Cr App R 59, [1975] Crim LR 154

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.250464

Regina v Deacon: CACD 1973

The court emphasised it did not have power to substitute a verdict on more general grounds i.e. when it was satisfied that the alternative verdict would have been inevitable had the case been properly presented to the jury. In considering section 3(1) of the 1968 Act and in particular the words ‘and the jury could on the indictment have found him guilty of some other offence’ it is necessary to have regard to section 6 of the 1967 Act.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

(1973) 57 Cr App R 688

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 3(1), Criminal Law Act 1967 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Graham, Kansal, etc CACD 25-Oct-1996
The court discussed when it was appropriate for the Court of Appeal to substitute other lesser convictions, after the main conviction had been declared unsafe.
Held: After studying the authorities at length, the court felt that the various . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.183249

Regina v Poole: CACD 27 Nov 2001

The defendant changed her not guilty plea to one of guilty during her trial. The jury was discharged, but no formal verdict was asked of them. On the following day, the defendant sought to vacate her guilty plea. The judge refused and a verdict of guilty stood. She appealed suggesting that the plea was a nullity.
Held: There was no principle of law which would support the suggestion that the verdict is a nullity without a jury verdict.

Judges:

Lord Justice Judge, Mrs Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2633, [2002] 1 WLR 1528

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.167048

Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami: CACD 1 Nov 2001

In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing.
Held: The procedures were available, and would not infringe the defendant’s human rights. There was nothing in the Court of Human rights jurisprudence to say that admission of such new evidence at the Court of Appeal would infringe the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The defence has no absolute right to disclosure of relevant evidence and that strictly necessary measures restricting the rights of the defence were permissible, provided they were counterbalanced by procedures followed by judicial authority.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2001, Gazette 29-Nov-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 2226, [2002] 1 WLR 531

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crown Court (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) (Disclosure) Rules 1997 (SI 1997 No 698)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Atlan v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jun-2001
It was an infringement of the defendant’s right to a fair trial for the trial judge not to be involved in ex parte applications to exclude evidence. The defect could not be remedied by the same evidence later being presented also to the appeal court . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Crime

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.167040

Regina v Alan Martin (On Appeal From Her Majesty’s Courts – Martial Appeal Court): HL 16 Dec 1997

A civilian who was subject to military law whilst abroad was properly tried by a court-martial for a murder committed whilst abroad. The accused was the son of a serving soldier, and living with him, and subject to martial law. There was no inherent abuse of process, and the procedure had been explicitly adopted by Parliament. He could be tried by the court-martial even after his return to the UK, provided the procedure was commenced within six months. That had happened.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jan-1998, [1997] UKHL 56, [1998] AC 917, [1998] 1 All ER 193, [1998] 2 WLR 1, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 347

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Army Act 1955 77A 131, Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metroplitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1992
Defendant policemen challenged as an abuse of process, the issue of summonses relating to events some 18 years earlier.
Neill LJ said: ‘The freeing of the Guildford Four and the comments made by the Court of Appeal attracted immediate and very . .
Cited – Regina v Beckford CACD 27-Jan-1995
Procedures are needed so that cars which have been involved in major accidents or crashes and criminal proceedings are envisaged should only be destroyed with consent. Neil LJ considered the law of abuse of process saying that: ‘the constitutional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Armed Forces

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.158931

Regina v Beckford: CACD 27 Jan 1995

Procedures are needed so that cars which have been involved in major accidents or crashes and criminal proceedings are envisaged should only be destroyed with consent. Neil LJ considered the law of abuse of process saying that: ‘the constitutional principle which underlies the jurisdiction to stay proceedings is that the courts have the power and the duty to protect the law by protecting its own purposes and functions.’

Judges:

Neil LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, [1996] 1 Cr App R 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Alan Martin (On Appeal From Her Majesty’s Courts – Martial Appeal Court) HL 16-Dec-1997
A civilian who was subject to military law whilst abroad was properly tried by a court-martial for a murder committed whilst abroad. The accused was the son of a serving soldier, and living with him, and subject to martial law. There was no inherent . .
Cited – Jones v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Jan-2011
The driver appealed against his conviction for exceeding the relevant maximum speed on a Special Road, the A55 in North Wales. The speed limit signs were designed to be illuminated, but the lamps were not working. Instructions had been given not to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.86107

In Re F (A Minor) (Criminal Proceedings): CA 12 Dec 1994

A father’s defence solicitor was entitled to interview children as witnesses of an alleged assault on the mother.

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-1994, Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Children, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.81876

Woodward and Others, Regina v: CACD 13 Jun 2019

The four defendants were to stand trial for murder, the trial being expected to last ten weeks. The jury was selected to allow for this, but when the trial was set to overrun, it had to be adjourned mid-retirement for three weeks and then again to allow some jury members to take pre-booked holidays. The court refused the defendants’ requests for a new trial.
Held: The appeals failed. There is no rule which generally precludes such arrangements as unfair. It was a question fact for each case. The judge had taken particular care on directions for the jury after the resumptions.

Judges:

Simon LJ, Jay J, Judge Picton

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1002, [2019] WLR(D) 336

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Kellard, Dwyer, Wright CACD 5-Aug-1994
Appeal on a multiplicity of issues from convictions recorded in the course of a trial which lasted about a year.
Held: In large fraud trials, the prosecution should consider severance of the indictment to shorten the length of individual . .
Cited – A and others v Regina CACD 25-Oct-2007
Defendants appealed after 4 month long trial: ‘so lengthy and disrupted was the hearing and so inadequate the summing up that the trial was unfair and their convictions unsafe.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.639268

Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002): HL 14 Oct 2004

The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, three of his officers, were selling confidential information to criminals. He ordered their telephones to be tapped. The resulting evidence was used in their trial. The systems tapped involved different networks of telephone systems, some private and some public.
Held: The basic object of section 17 appears to be to preserve the secrecy of the warrant system. There was nothing in the 2000 Act to suggest a parliamentary intention to render inadmissible as evidence in criminal proceedings any material which had previously been admissible. The Act did not operate to make such material inadmissible. It was permissible for the court to ask as to the source of such telephone intercept materials.
Lord Steyn said that in view of the absurdity that would otherwise result, the House must not give its literal interpretation to a statutory provision which, literally read, precluded the defence from asking questions to establish that there had been interception (consequently illegal) on part of a public telecommunications system, but allowed the prosecution to call evidence to the effect that the interceptions had taken place wholly within a police private telecommunications system (and were therefore legal). The linguistic difficulty was ‘decisively outweighed by a purposive interpretation of the statute’.

Judges:

Lord Bingham Of Cornhill

Citations:

[2004] UKHL 40, [2004] 4 All ER 901, [2005] 1 AC 167, [2004] 3 WLR 957

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .
Appeal from – W, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
Cited – Regina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
Cited – Regina v Sargent HL 25-Oct-2001
When a telephone engineer used his position to make unauthorised telephone intercepts, and produced apparent evidence of criminal activity, he was, under the Act, a person engaged in providing a public communications system, and the recordings were . .
Cited – Regina v Ahmed and Others CACD 29-Mar-1994
The tapping of telephone calls within a police station switchboard was outside the scope of the Act, since the calls were not intercepted whilst the communications were being carried on a public telecommunications system. . .
Cited – Halford v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Jun-1997
halford_ukECHR1997
The interception of the telephone calls of an employee in a private exchange was a breach of her right of privacy. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police force’s surveillances of the applicant’s telephone (to obtain information . .
Cited – Regina v Effik; Regina v Mitchell HL 22-Jul-1994
The material obtained by intercepting signals passing between a base unit and the handset of a cordless telephone was admissible because no communication was being made by means of a public system when the calls were intercepted by the police. A . .
Cited – Regina v Goodman CACD 4-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Allan CACD 6-Apr-2001
. .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Institute of Patent Agents v Lockwood 1894
The court could apply a rectifying construction to conflicting provisions an Act where necessary.
Lord Herschell LC said: ‘You have to try and reconcile [the provisions] as best you may. If you cannot, you have to determine which is the . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – W, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
Cited – Regina v Austin and others CACD 16-May-2008
The defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to supply drugs. The prosecutor relied on surveillance evidence showing meetings and telephone calls between the defendants; evidence from recording devices in defendants’ . .
Cited – Knaggs v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Jan-2009
The claimants had been prosecuted following authorised intrusive surveillance. They challenged the laws which prevented them from asking questions about interception, and therefore from defending themselves. The defendants said that the police had . .
Cited – Noone, Regina (on The Application of) v Governor of HMP Drake Hall and Another SC 30-Jun-2010
The prisoner had been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, one for less, and one for more than 12 months. She disputed the date on which she should be released to home detention under curfew under the Guidance issued by the Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Constitutional

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.216431

Ball, Regina v: CACD 15 Nov 2018

Appeal from conviction of theft – irregularity which occurred during the jury’s retirement – very bad weather during trial – whether jurors under pressure to get home – judge corresponding with jury as to majority verdict.
Held: ‘save in the limited situation of an uncontroversial communication raising something unconnected with the trial, it will in almost every case be necessary for the judge to recall the jury if they have asked a question and to answer their question in open court.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Holroyde
Mr Justice Dingemans
Her Honour Judge Walden-Smith
(Sitting as a Judge of the Cacd)

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2896

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.654977

Regina v Imran, Hussain: CACD 9 Jun 1997

The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after retirement.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused.
As to any obligation on the police to disclose all evidence: ‘it is submitted that the tenor of sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 require the police to give as full a briefing as possible of disclosing all material to a legal representative before the interview with a suspect commences. We do not agree. There is of course a duty on the police not actively to mislead any suspect, but it is in our judgment totally impossible to spell out either expressly or by any permissible implication from those five sections any such requirement on the part of the police.’
As to the tape, which had already been seen in court: ‘for the jury to view the tape again amounted to no more than a repeat of evidence which had been given.’ However, ‘in future if such a request is made to re-view evidence of police surveillance, it is better if it is done in open court where it can be seen that nothing untoward takes place.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Rougier, Maurice Kay LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 1401, [1997] CLR 754

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35 36 37 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 Rawlings, Regina v Broadbent CACD 19-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on the circumstances for showing video evidence to a jury a second time after they had once retired.
Held: It should be exceptional only, because of the risk of it attracting greater weight than other evidence. It remains a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Thirwell CACD 14-Feb-2002
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He said that three pieces of evidence should have been excluded. The police station interview had been conducted against a background where his solicitor had been denied access to a post mortem . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.150856

Regina v Turner (Paul): CA 11 Oct 1994

An application to exclude evidence for public interest immunity was to be recorded verbatim. The court emphasised the need to scrutinise, with great care, applications for disclosure of details about informers.

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 264

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.88212

Regina v Ofori, Regina v Tackie: CA 17 Nov 1993

Court has power to grant bail or to release a person, pending their appeal despite the existence of a deportation order.

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-1993, Gazette 08-Dec-1993, (1994) 99 Cr App R 223

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Okolie CACD 16-Jun-2000
Evidence is always required on matters relating to foreign law, and such evidence given in person unless it was agreed or no issue was taken. Untranslated reports of stolen vehicles prepared by employees of the person who claimed to have been the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Immigration

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87485