(Cayman Islands) The defendant appealed against his conviction for money laundering, alleging apparent bias in a juror who was said to have been acquainted with one witness.
Held: The appeal failed. The juror had correctly replied to the questions put to him, but thay did not identify the problem. Had the court known of the true relationship (acquaintance at one remove through partners), he would have been excused, but in looking at the situation, the court had correctly applied the law: ‘The putative observer would not conclude that Mr Uzzell might have accepted Mr Bjuroe’s evidence because of the relationship. He or she would have accepted it because it was not challenged and it was not challenged because it was true.’ The defendant’s ‘submission is inconsistent, not only with the failure to challenge his evidence in cross-examination, but also with the fact that . . the appellant did not contradict the evidence of Mr Bjuroe. ‘

Lord Saville, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKPC 8
Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Cited – Morrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.406177

The defendants appealed aginst their convictions for inflicting grievous bodily harm. When first arrested they had been issued with fixed penalty tickets for much lesser offences. The police officers did not anticipate the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim. On the following day, a full investigation was ordered, and the prosecutions followed.
Held: The prosecution was not an abuse. There are clear principle against serial punishments for the same actions, and also against acting after a defendant had acted on re-assurances that he would not be prosecuted. Here payment of the fixed penalty would not count as an admission of an offence, and nor would it create a criminal record. No re-assurance had been given that the defendants might not be prosecuted for any other offence: ‘on the night in question the appellants must have been thanking their lucky stars that they had got away with the serious violence they had perpetrated. It was not an abuse of process for justice to catch up with them.’

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Blair
[2009] EWCA Crim 1424, Times 14-Jul-2009
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Jones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .

Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander Admn 27-Jul-2010
The defendant had crashed his car after driving off with a girl, and while being chased by another car driven by her boyfriend. The police first cautioned him for false imprisonment, but then prosecuted him for careless driving. The prosecutor . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.347708

Where jurors had concerns about the behaviour of fellow jurors, they should bring these to the attention of the judge during the trial rather than after. Jurors should be told of this, but not in such a way as to encourage inappropriate criticism of fellow jurors. ‘IV.42.6 Trial judges should ensure that the jury is alerted to the need to bring any concerns about fellow jurors to the attention of the judge at the time, and not wait until the case is concluded. At the same time, it is undesirable to encourage inappropriate criticism of fellow jurors, or to threaten jurors with contempt of court. IV.42.7 Judges should therefore take the opportunity, when warning the jury of the importance of not discussing the case with anyone outside the jury, to add a further warning. It is for the trial judge to tailor the further warning to the case, and to the phraseology used in the usual warning. The effect of the further warning should be that it is the duty of jurors to bring to the judge’s attention, promptly, any behaviour among the jurors or by others affecting the jurors, that causes concern. The point should be made that, unless that is done while the case is continuing, it may be impossible to put matters right.’

Woolf LCJ
Times 27-Feb-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 665
England and Wales
Citing:
Amended – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Applied – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .

Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General v Scotcher HL 19-May-2005
Following a trial, a juror wrote to the defendant’s mother to say that other jury members had not considered the case in a proper manner. He had been given written advice that he was not free to discuss a case with anyone. He appealed his conviction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.194061

The Crown appealed against a stay imposed on its prosecution of the defendant accused of possessing and creating indecent images of children. It had refused to provide access to the materials to the extent required by the defence to allow it to prepare its case. CPS said that it feared that an officer might himself be prosecuted for an offence under the Act:
Held: The appeal failed. The CPS approach was extraordinary in failing to obey the court order. The court could not imagine circumstances under which an officer might be prosecuted for obeying the court order. The judge had carefully considered the objections and difficulties put forward by the prosecution in making his order: ‘The cases are likely to be very few and far between where his order is so inimical to the interest of justice that no judge could reasonably have made it, so that the Crown can properly refuse, courteously, to comply, and then challenge the consequent stay by appeal to this court. That, however, is not this case, and indeed is very far from it.’

Lord Judge LCJ, Wilkie J, Maddison J
[2010] EWCA Crim 924, [2010] 3 All ER 969, [2010] 2 Cr App R 9
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 58
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.414595

Earlier Acquittal not for mention on retrial

The defendant appealed against several convictions for serious ‘historic’ sex abuse. He said that there was insufficient evidence before the court to decide that the complainant had been under 14 at the time, and that any consent was vitiated. He also complained that he had not been allowed to put to the jury that he had been twice acquitted of these charges.
Held: Only in the clearest of cases should an issue as to the age of a complainant be withdrawn from the jury. This was not such a case. Equally there were other possible explanations for the earlier acquittals than that the complanaint had been judged a liar. The normal situation was that such acquittals were irrelevant: ‘The question of whether the acquittals should be allowed to go before the jury with respect to the question of reliability is a matter for the judge to determine, balancing the interests of the defendant against those of the prosecution and having regard to what is fair overall. The judge in this case thought that these were relatively trivial matters, that they would have little bearing on the substantial issues that the jury had to determine at the retrial, and that they would necessarily distract the jury from its task and invite speculation as to why the earlier jury had reached the verdict that it had.’

Elias LJ, MacKay, Hickinbottom JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 916
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Olugboja, Regina v CACD 17-Jun-1981
The actus reus of the offence of rape was an act of sexual intercourse to which the complainant did not consent at the time it occurred. . .
Cited – H, Regina v CACD 10-Jul-2007
The judge had upheld a half time submission where there was strong evidence that a drunk 16-year old had consented to intercourse.
Held: The issue ought to have been left to the jury. Hallett LJ observed that questions of capacity and consent . .
Cited – Regina v Terry CACD 21-Dec-2004
The prosecutor had a alleged a conspiracy basing the charge on a conversation in a car. The court rejected the admisibility of evidence of a voice recognition expert, and the defendant was acquitted on direction. He then said that in the absence of . .
Cited – Regina v Cooke CACD 1987
The defendant faced trial on offences of conspiracy to commit forgery and other related offences. It was alleged that he had made admissions to a police officer in a related case but involving a different defendant. The jury had acquitted the . .
Cited – Regina v Joseph Robert H CACD 1990
At his first trial, the appellant was charged with several sexual offences. He was acquitted on some and the jury failed to agree on others. His counsel sought to adduce evidence of acquittal on the Counts of indecent assault at the first trial to . .
Cited – Regina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .
Cited – Hui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
Cited – Regina v Malone CACD 1-May-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, arguing that the girl, though drunk, had consented.
Held: The Court approved the judge’s direction as follows: ‘She does not claim to have physically resisted nor to have verbally protested. She . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.441297

The defendants appealed against their convictions and sentence for violent disorder and assault during an uprising at Yarl’s Wood Detention centre. It was said that witnesses had been coached, other defence witnesses had been returned to their countries of origin, depriving the defendants of a fair trial, and jurors had complained to the judge about the behaviour of other jurors.
Held: The detention officer witnesses had received counselling both as to the after effects of the confrontation, and they had been supported in practising giving evidence in a fictional scenario designed to reflect some of the incidents which had occurred. The judge directed the jury ‘There is no place for witness training in our country, we do not do it. It is unlawful.’ A ‘witness should give his or her own evidence, so far as practicable uninfluenced by what anyone else has said, whether in formal discussions or informal conversations.’ The court discussed the dangers of therapy, in this cognitive cognitive and group therapies and the practising of giving evidence. A witness could properly be familiarised with the court and likely procedures, but should not discuss proposed or intended evidence. Written records should be kept, and in case of doubt, counsel’s advice should be sought. In this case the safety of the prosecution had not been undermined.

Lord Justice Judge Sir Michael Wright The Honourable Mrs Justice Dobbs Dbe
[2005] EWCA Crim 177, Times 09-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3442, [2005] Crim LR 588, [2005] 2 All ER 571, [2005] 2 Cr App R 6, (2005) 169 JP 186
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Richardson CACD 1971
Statements and proofs of one witness should not be disclosed to any other witness. . .
Cited – Regina v Arif CA 17-Jun-1993
Pre-trial discussion of evidence by potential witnesses is to be to be discouraged. . .
Cited – Regina v Skinner CACD 6-Dec-1993
Witnesses should not rehearse their evidence together before going into court. Farquharson LJ said: ‘It has certainly been permissible, since Lord Goddard’s time, for officers to confer together in the making up of their notebooks immediately after . .
Cited – Regina v Shaw CACD 2002
Discussions between witnesses should not take place, and the statements and proofs of one witness should not be disclosed to any other witness. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Saunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .
Cited – Athwal and Others, Regina v CACD 7-May-2009
The appellants challenged their conviction for murder and sentences. The victim was the young second wife of the first defendant. It was said that she had been unfaithful, and having been lured to India, had been murdered there. She had disappeared, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.222175

The defendant was convicted of the offence of overstaying the time given by his leave to enter the UK. He had made assorted applications for extended leave but they had been rejected. His conviction was overturned by the Divisional Court and remitted to the magistrates for them to determine whether he first became aware of the date of expiry of his leave before the alleged offences.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. Ignorance of a fact necessary to conviction may be a defence, but ignorance of the law was not. If information about the law is accessible, a defendant is deemed to know of it.
Nevertheless, the offence was only committed on the days after the leave had expired. If at that time he was ignorant of some necessary fact, the later acquisition of the knowledge of that fact could not be used to make him guilty on an eralier date. In this case the prosecution, based upon that calculation was out of time under section 28(1).
Lord Bridge said: ‘First, the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence in crime is so fundamental that to construe the word ‘knowingly’ in a criminal statute as requiring not merely knowledge of the facts material to the offender’s guilt, but also knowledge of the relevant law, would be revolutionary and to my mind, wholly unacceptable. I reserve my opinion as to whether the courts might nevertheless be driven to that extremity if a statutory offence embodying a requirement of knowledge in the definition of the offence were of such a nature that it was impossible to envisage circumstances in which the facts necessary to establish the offender’s guilt would not be known to him. But that is certainly not this case.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1982] 1 WLR 638, [1982] 2 All ER 257
Immigration Act 1971 24(1)(b) 28(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Christian and others v The Queen PC 30-Oct-2006
(The Pitcairn Islands) The defendants appealed convictions for assorted sexual offences against underage girls. They denied that the laws under which they were convicted had applied to the Pitcairn Islands.
Held: The appeals against conviction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.245769

An application had been made for an anti-social behaviour order against the defendant. The council sought at the hearing to bring evidence as to his continued behaviour after the application had been filed. The council now appealed against the non-admission of the evidence.
Held: The District Judge had been wrong not to admit the evidence. Evidence of later behaviour could not be used to enlarge the allegations put, but could operate as evidence to support the proof of the behaviour alleged in the application.

Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Tugendhat
[2009] EWHC 761 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 233
Times, Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(1)(a)
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.334623

Jurisdiction of CACD for Venire de Novo writ

The House considered what should be the consequences of a radical or fundamental error in the trial process, and whether there was jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to order a venire de novo when the court was satisfied that a verdict of guilty must be set aside because of a ‘material irregularity consisting of improper pressure imposed upon the jury at any time before verdict.’
Held: A writ of venire de novo could be issued when irregularity has resulted in no trial validly commencing or when no properly constituted jury ever returned a valid verdict, but not when irregularity occurred between the valid commencement of the trial and the discharge of the jury after reaching a verdict.
Lord Diplock said of unfair pressure placed upon a jury to reach a verdict that if the judge had imposed a time limit on the jury in the course of his summing up there would have been a risk of pressure. He went on to draw a distinction between those cases where venire de novo might lie because the trial had never been ‘validly commenced’, and those which, although validly commenced, ‘had not been validly concluded by a properly constituted jury bringing an unequivocal verdict of guilty or not guilty followed by sentence or discharge of the defendant by the court.’ There was a validly presented indictment but an irregularity in procedure that resulted in no valid verdict being returned.
Lord Diplock said: ‘the state of judicial authority as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to issue writs of venire de novo at the date of its abolition in 1966. That Court could do so if there had been an irregularity of procedure which resulted in there having been no trial that had been validly commenced. It could do so if the trial had come to an end without a properly constituted jury ever having returned a valid verdict.’

Lord Diplock
[1982] AC 822
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Rose and Others CACD 1982
The court considered the effect of an irregularity in a trial and how it should be dealt with. . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450342

Brown directions Rarely Required

The defendant appealed saying that a Brown direction should have been given.
Held: Brown directions were required in fairly rare situations. When the individual particulars were not said to be coterminous with an essential element or ingredient of the offence and when the individual particulars did not involve different defences, a Brown direction was unnecessary It was confined to those cases where: (i) there was an appreciable danger that, in deciding whether they were agreed on the matter that constituted the relevant ingredient, some of the jury might convict having found a particular matter proved as constituting the ingredient while others might find a wholly different matter or different matters proved as constituting the ingredient. When the factual bases of the crime charged were, in reality, individually coterminous with an essential element or ingredient of the offence, then it appeared necessary for a Brown direction to be given. (ii) Two distinct events or incidents were alleged, either of which constituted the ingredient of the offence charged. (iii) Two different means of committing the offence might give rise to different defences.

Fulford LJ, Goose J, Sir Roderick Evans
[2021] EWCA Crim 1311, [2021] WLR(D) 473
Bailii, WLRD
Serious Crime Act 2015 76
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Brown (K) CACD 1984
Jury Directions: Common Element in Several Charges
The defendant was accused of fraudulently inducing the investment of money. inducing four people to acquire shares in a company by making misleading statements. The particulars given in the count identified five statements allegedly made by him in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.668294

There is no restriction on the prosecution introducing a new count after an order that a case be re-tried. Such an action involved no abuse of process. The lack of authority indicated the obviousness of the existence of the power to amend the indictment, provided only that, as in this case, no injustice ensued.

Times 01-Nov-2000

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.85575

Good Reason to Pursue Second Appeal

The appellants had been convicted of fraud against the Post Office. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred their convictions on two grounds, namely abuse of process for the inability to provide a fair trial, and that the trial was an affront to the conscience of the court. The first was unopposed by the respondents. The appellants said that the convictions arose from faulty software supplied by the Respondent, and persisted with both grounds of appeal.
Held: Having been granted permission to appeal under both grounds, it nevertheless was clear that the court allowing the appeal on the first ground had no binding obligation to decide the second.
Here the combination of the strong public interest and the defendants’ legitimate interests was enough to require a decision on both grounds of appeal. Matters could be kept within proper limits by case management.
When considering whether it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that a further ground should be determined, the factors which the court will usually wish to consider include (but are not limited to) the following:
i) The article 6 rights of the appellant;
ii) The overall importance to the parties and to the public of the further ground, bearing in mind that the appeal will in any event be successful;
iii) The furtherance of the overriding objective in accordance with the Rules;
iv) Whether the additional ground raises issues of particular importance in relation to the character and/or reputation of the appellant and/or of a witness or other person concerned in the proceedings;
v) Whether the additional ground relates to an issue which should be resolved in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system;
vi) Whether the additional ground raises a legal issue which may be important in other cases;
vii) The desirability of an appellant, even though his or her appeal will in any event succeed, being able to seek appropriate vindication;
viii) The time and expense which will be involved in determining the additional ground, and the extent to which the court’s resources will be taken up, bearing in mind the interests of appellants in other, unrelated cases who wish their appeals to be heard;
ix) Whether determination of the additional ground would give rise to undesirable delay to the instant appeal, or to other cases which are in some way linked to it or affected by it;
x) Whether determination of the additional ground is necessary in order to establish the proper basis on which a retrial of an appellant would be conducted;
xi) Whether any party may have a collateral reason for wishing to argue, or to avoid having to argue, the additional ground, and if so, the legitimacy (or otherwise) of that reason.

Holroyde LJ, Picken, Farbey JJ
[2021] EWCA Crim 21, [2021] WLR(D) 66
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 1 2, Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Berry (No 3) CACD 1993
If there are several grounds of appeal, the Court of Appeal can decide whether the other grounds are to be considered.
The Court of Appeal is to note any unresolved issues after a case has decided on one point only.
Lord Taylor CJ . .
Cited – Maxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Cited – Sadeer, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2018
. .
Cited – Regina v Mandair HL 20-May-1994
The House of Lords may itself determine the grounds of an appeal, and deal with matters undetermined by Court of Appeal. A verdict of ‘causing GBH’ (not inflicting) was not an offence unknown to law. A verdict of ‘causing GBH contrary to s20’ was . .
Cited – Regina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 3) CACD 28-Nov-2002
The appellant was supported in his appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition the appellant sought to permission raise other grounds of appeal. The prosecution asserted that the court could filter the grounds of appeal already . .
Cited – Regina v Mears and Another CACD 10-Nov-2011
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.657256

Defendant’s death stops trial immediately

At his trial for serious sexual offences, the jury passed a note to the judge saying that they had reached unanimous verdicts on several counts. The judge did not pass the note to counsel, but instead asked the jury to retire overnight to try again on the following day. Overnight, the defendant committed suicide, but after discussions with counsel, he asked the jury to return such unanimous verdicts as they had. The defendant’s mother now asked to find the verdicts, a nullty being as against a deceased person.
Held: The applicant was entitled to her declaration. The judge had no power to act as he had: ‘Quite apart from the fact that there is no statutory or common law authority which justifies the way in which the judge proceeded in this case, these questions all lead to the conclusion that in order to preserve the bright line that criminal prosecutions are not pursued against those who have died, there is no discretion as to the course of action then to be taken. As soon as a judge learns that a defendant has died, it is his duty to take no further step in the case against that defendant save for receiving proof of death whereupon the indictment as far as it concerns that defendant must be declared of no effect. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not to say that the indictment cannot proceed against other defendants depending, of course, on all the circumstances.’

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Jay, Garnham JJ
[2017] EWCA Crim 391, [2017] WLR(D) 250
Bailii, WLRD
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Robinson CACD 1974
Verdicts of a jury must be delivered in open court . .
Cited – Regina v Drew CACD 1985
The court considered when a judge should allow a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty: ‘only rarely would it be appropriate for the trial judge to exercise his undoubted discretion in favour of an accused person wishing to change an unequivocal . .
Cited – Regina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .
Cited – ex parte Guardian Newspapers Ltd CACD 30-Sep-1998
The defendants purported to serve a notice under Rule 24A(1) of the Crown Court Rules 1982 of an intention to apply for a hearing in camera of their application that the trial be stopped as an abuse of process.
Held: Where an application was . .
Cited – Regina v Jefferies 1968
The appellant died pending his appeal being heard and his widow wished to pursue a challenge to the order for payment of prosecution costs.
Held: The powers of the court were derived from statute and did not permit such a course.
Widgery . .
Cited – Regina v Kearley (Dec, by his Agent Brian Sharman) (Number 2) HL 21-Jul-1994
An appeal lapses with the death of the appellant even though others may be affected. A statutory right of appeal is a personal right and does not survive the applicant.
Rights of appeal die with appellant even after remission by House of Lords. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.581943

The defendant appealed against his sentence. He had pleaded guilty to offences of kidnapping and unlawful wounding on the basis that he had not been involved in any planning. When sentencing him, the judge had rejected this basis.
Held: The appeal succeeded. If a judge wished to sentence on a different basis than that on which a plea had been entered, he must inform the defence team in advance so that representations could be made, or evidence called.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Judge Lorraine-Smith
Times 13-Jul-2009
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.375995

The defendant had faced a charge of assault in the Magistrates Court and had pleaded not guilty. She had indicated in the ‘trial issues’ form through her lawyer that her defence was self defence. The prosecutor then indicated that the charge was to be upgraded to Actual Bodily Harm. At committal the defendant wanted to argue that no case to answer was shown since there was no evidence to identify the defendant. The prosecutor said that the earlier response was an admission of involvement. The defendant now sought judicial review of the magistrates’ order for committal for trial, saying that the contents of the form ought not to be used as evidence.
Held: The appeal failed. Such material might be relied upon. The law and practice had changed substantially from the earlier cases.

Toulson LJ
[2011] EWHC 388 (Admin), [2011] 1 Cr App R 32
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 39, Offences Against the Person Act 1861 47, Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d) 118(6), Criminal Justice Act 1967 10
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Gleeson CACD 16-Oct-2003
At the close of the prosecution case, the defendant’s counsel submitted that, following Nock, there was no case to answer. The prosecution sought to amend the indictment by adding an allegation of a statutory conspiracy, and to re-open the case, but . .
Cited – Regina v Turner (Terence) CACD 1974
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He admitted that he had killed his girlfriend with a hammer, but sought to bring psychiatric evidence that he was susceptible to provocation.
Held: The law jealously guards the role of . .
Cited – Regina v Dietrich and Aldridge CACD 1997
It would only rarely be appropriate to introduce before the jury something which had happened at the plea and directions hearing. . .
Applied – Regina v Turner (Bryan) CACD 1975
The court was asked whether what a defendant’s counsel had said in a plea in mitigation in one case could be proved and admitted as evidence in another trial. The objection was made that the evidence could not go before the jury until the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Newell, Regina v CACD 30-Mar-2012
The appellant challenged the introduction in evidence of a previous inconsistent statement lodged on his behalf by counsel on a Plea and Case Management Form at a directions hearing.
Held: The appeal was allowed. An advocate plainly has . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.430240

The defendant faced a charge of conspiracy to import Class A drugs. Detailed discussions had taken place between the prosecutor and defendant under which he had pleaded guity on a agreed basis of fact. The prosecutor then proceeded with a furthe money laundering charge. The defendant objceted that the prosecutor was now presenting as fact matters which conflicted with the agreed basis of the earlier plea. The prosecutor now appealed against a stay issued on the prosecution as an abuse of process.
Held: The prosecution case was wholly inconsistent with the basis upon which it had accepted the earlier plea, and it would be an abuse of process for the charges to be allowed to proceed. The appeal failed.
Pill LJ said that there might be cases where fresh evidence emerges and circumstances change so that it may sometimes be possible for the prosecution to circumvent a basis of plea to which they had previously agreed. However in this case it would be an abuse of process to do so.

Pill LJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 1483
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 67
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.349054

The Crown appealed against dismissal of historic sexual abuse charges for delay by the complainant.
Held: The justification for delay is relevant only to the extent that it bears upon the question whether a fair trial is no longer possible by reason of prejudice to the defendant occasioned by delay which cannot fairly be addressed in the trial process. The court will bear in mind its power to regulate the admission of evidence and the ability of the trial process to ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury for their consideration in accordance with appropriate directions from the judge.
Judge LCJ said: ‘In the overwhelming majority of historic sex allegations, the reasons for the delayed complaint . . bear directly on the credibility of the complainant. They therefore form an essential part of the factual matrix on which the jury must make its decision. That is the principal and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the only relevance of the evidence on these issues. When, in the authorities to which we have referred, it is clearly stated that an abuse of process argument cannot succeed unless prejudice has been caused to the defendant, the principles do not normally encompass the explanation for the delay, nor do they extend to the explanation or explanations which the judge himself or herself may regard as inadequate or unsatisfactory or inconsistent. Indeed, features like these are revealed by and become apparent through the ordinary processes of a trial and these questions remain pre-eminently for the jury. Although therefore they may be relevant to submissions that there is no case to answer, . . it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which they have any relevance to an abuse of process argument, unless in some manner they impact on the question whether there can be a fair trial. The explanations for delay are relevant to an application to stay only if they bear on how readily the fact of prejudice may be shown. Unjustified delay in making the complaint and even more so institutional prosecutor misconduct leading to delay . . . . .may make the judge more certain of prejudice, which may even have been the aim of the delay. That is the import of the references in the cases to the reasons for delay. That is, however, a long way from the proposition that unjustified delay is by itself sufficient reason for a stay. It is not.’

Lord Judge CJ
[2012] Crim LR 282, [2011] EWCA Crim 1844, [2012] QB 703, [2011] 2 Cr App R 28, [2012] 1 All ER 565, [2012] 2 WLR 1038
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor v Regina CACD 20-Dec-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction, for sex offences some 33 years earlier, saying that the convictions had been unfairly obtained. Evidence had been available since 1980, but a decision not to prosecute had been taken.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.442024

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 evidence. The defendant objected that the court did nothave jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Crown not having complied with the rules for service of the required notices.
Held: Leave was granted, and the appeal succeeded. The requirement to give notice only came into play when the judge gave his ruling in court. The judge had given an informal view in an email, but time ran only from the point where that email was confirmed as is judgment in open court: ‘provisions under the terminating ruling legislation are strict, and an informal procedure is wholly inconsistent with them. The e-mail which was sent to counsel contained the warning that it was intended ‘only for the attention of the addressee’. We regard this informal procedure as a courtesy by the judge to counsel, but no more. It would be wrong to accord it the status of a formal ruling triggering the strict rules applying to appeals against terminating rulings.’
The judge had erred having: ‘substituted the issue of the interpreter’s difficulties in communicating for the test of whether the witness could understand questions and give intelligible answers.’

Treaey LJ, Saunders J, Milford QC
[2013] 1 WLR 2143, [2013] EWCA Crim 424, (2013) 177 JP 406, [2013] 2 Cr App R 13, [2014] Crim LR 136
Bailii
Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 53(3), Criminal Justice Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – NT, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse. The prosecution had failed give the undertaking necessary on lodging the appeal to the court against whose ruling it wanted to appeal, that it agreed that the defendant should be . .
Cited – Regina v B CACD 21-Jan-2010
The court granted leave to appeal against conviction, but then dismissed the defendant’s appeal. He had been convicted of sexual assault on a young child.
Held: A delay in a hearing did not of itself render the evidence of a very young . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v M CACD 26-Apr-2012
The defendant was told in court at the time of the judge’s ruling in court that the proceedings against him were being terminated.
Held: For a prosecutor’s appeal against a ‘terminating ruling’, the statutory requirement that either an . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.472945

The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not have been admitted. She said that transactions had not been put through the till at the instruction of her employer who wanted the cash paid direct to him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The interviews conducted by the civilian investigators were said to have broken the PACE codes of practice, and the admission obtained by oppression. It was the appellant’s case that she had been prevented from leaving the room; she had not been allowed access to any legal advice, she was threatened that the consequence of what was alleged to have done was prison and the interview was conducted in a threatening manner. In those circumstances, the judge should have concluded that these were allegations that had to be investigated by a consideration of the evidence on a voir dire. Only in that way could they have been tested satisfactorily. It was for the prosecutor under the circumstances to establish that the interview did not fall foul of section 76.

Aikens LJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1237, (2010) 174 JP 401, [2010] 2 Cr App R 21
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 67(9) 78
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Fuller 1987
The court considered what might be oppressive behaviour by an investigating officer.
Held: ‘oppression’ must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘the exercise of power or authority in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner, the unjust . .
Cited – Regina v Bayliss CACD 16-Mar-1993
A shop store-detective could be said to be a person charged with a duty to investigate offences. Whether he is, is a question of fact in each case, and its determination will turn on the evidence of the terms of the contract between the store . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R 1988
R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.416579

The prosecutor appealed after the district judge had at first granted an anti-social behaviour order, but had later thought it too wide and that it was unenforceable and void.
Held: the district judge had exceeded his powers. There were clearly defined avenues of appeal and the defendant should have used them rather than to seek to use such complaints as a defence on a breach allegation. However the court acknowledged that the judge’s concerns had been well founded, and declined to quash his decision or to remit the case.
Richards LJ cited Boddington and observed: ‘Very different considerations apply in the present context. First, the normal rule in relation to an order of the court is that it must be treated as valid and be obeyed unless and until it is set aside. Even if the order should not have been made in the first place, a person may be liable for any breach of it committed before it is set aside.’
Orse Director of Public Prosecutions v T
Lord Justice Richards
[2006] EWHC 728 (Admin), Times 13-Apr-2006, [2006] 3 All ER 471, [2007] 1 WLR 209
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Cited – Johnson v Walton 1990
There was a continuing obligation to obey a court order until it was discharged. . .
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for breaching an anti-social behaviour order. The order had prohibited him from committing any criminal act. It was now challenged as being too wide a prohibition.
Held: ‘The defendant had already been . .

Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government (or, indeed, anyone else) can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.240070

The defendant submitted a defence statement under the statutory rules, but refused to sign it. The defence would have incriminated him in respect of other matters. The local court had issued a practice direction requiring defence statements to be signed by the defendant, and the Court of Appeal had also recommended it. The court refused to accept it without his signature, and he challenged that refusal.
Held: the jurisdiction with regard to defence statements was entirely statutory, and the statute made no allowance for compulsion. Nevertheless, an unsigned defence statement might be tested by the court to establish that it did represent the defendant’s case, and if extra costs were incurred, he or anyone advising him not to sign it, might expect to be asked to pay those costs.
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Rafferty
Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 922 (Admin), [2002] 1 WLR 2747
Bailii, Bailii
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 5
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.172256