Category: Criminal Practice

Marks v Beyfus: 1890

The plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. He called the Director of Public Prosecutions as a witness, who refused to identify the name of the person who had given him the information on which he had acted against the plaintiff.
Held: The judge’s decision not to do so was upheld.
Lord Esher said: ‘this rule as to public prosecutions was founded on grounds of public policy, and if this prosecution was a public prosecution the rule attaches . . I do not say it is a rule which can never be departed from; if upon the trial of a prisoner the judge should be of opinion that the disclosure of the name of the informant is necessary or right in order to shew the prisoner’s innocence, then one public policy is in conflict with another public policy, and that which says that an innocent man is not to be condemned when his innocence can be proved is the policy that must prevail. But except in that case, this rule of public policy is not a matter of discretion; it is a rule of law, and as such should be applied by the judge at the trial, who should not treat it as a matter of discretion.’
The rule applied: ‘not only to the trial of the prisoner, but also to a subsequent civil action between the parties on the ground that the criminal prosecution was maliciously instituted or brought about.’
Lord Esher
(1890) 25 QBD 494
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary CA 20-Aug-1999
Application for permission to appeal by the defendant. The defendant had asserted a public interest immunity in refusing to disclose evidence of a witness since it would lead to the revelation of the identity of an informer.
Held: Leave was . .
Cited – The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v McNally CA 25-Jan-2002
The claimant sought damages against the police for malicious prosecution and otherwise. He sought disclosure of whether a party referred to in the case as X, had at any time been a paid informer. The police appealed an order to disclose this. . .
Cited – Regina v Rankine CACD 1986
R appealed his conviction for unlawfully supplying a controlled drug. Officers claimed to have seen him, but the court agreed not to order disclosure of their observation location.
Held: The appeal failed. It was important not to discourage . .
Cited – Savage v Hoddinot (Chief Constable of Hampshire) CA 6-Feb-1997
A police informer may abandon anonymity to sue police for promised fees. . .
Cited – Mahon and Others v Mahon and Others CA 23-May-1997
Appeal from striking out of defamation action as abuse of process. . .
Explained – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Cited – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Justices ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rogers v Home Secretary HL 1972
The House considered a claim for public interest immunity.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘the public interest which demands that the evidence be withheld has to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.180912

Case XXXIX1 H 4, 1 13 H S, 1 Trial, Peers, Appeal: 1220

The trial of a peer of the realm for treason or felony is by indictment : and upon this indictment, he shall be arraigned before the constable of England or the high steward ; and he shall be tried by his peers upon their honours, not upon their oaths. There must be 12 peers at least ; and the lowest peer shall give his verdict first, and so seriatim.
By all the judges of England.
If an appeal be brought against a peer for the death of a man, or any other felony ; his trial shall he by knights and gentlemen.
[1220] EngR 15, (1220-1623) Jenk 73, (1220) 145 ER 52 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.460927

Fergus, Regina (On the Application of) v Southampton Crown Court: Admn 4 Dec 2008

The applicant challenged the withdrawal of bail on surrender to the Crown Court.
Held: Applying the case of Thompson, ‘bearing in mind the presumption in favour of granting bail and the high threshold that a defendant should only be remanded in custody if it was ‘necessary’.’ The defendant had been on bail for four months, and had surrendered when required to do so, and no good reason had been put forward by the judge nor by the Crown Prosecution Service to establish one of the statutory grounds as to why bail should be refused. The decision was quashed.
Silber J
[2008] EWHC 3273 (Admin)
Bailii
Bail Act 1976
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (on application of Thompson) v Central Criminal Court Admn 6-Oct-2005
Collin J considered the relation between the withholding of bail and human rights law saying: ‘The approach under the Bail Act is entirely consistent with the approach of the European Court as regarded proper under Article 5, namely there must be a . .
Cited – M v Isleworth Crown Court and Another Admn 2-Mar-2005
The court considered an appeal by way of judicial review of a refusal of bail.
Held: There was jurisdiction to consider a claim that bail had been refused in circumstances which showed that that refusal was erroneous in law, but that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.375537

Cowper v Director Of Public Prosecutions: Admn 18 Mar 2009

Appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Justices as to whether the evidence of the refusal by a driver suspected of drink-driving to take a breath test at the police station is inadmissible, because the suspect has requested to speak to a solicitor, and that request was not granted before the test was administered.
[2009] EWHC 2165 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.373970

Dhaliwal and Others v Regina: CACD 3 Jul 2020

Whether a serious irregularity caused by a juror conducting his own research into a defendant’s background undermines the fairness of the trial and the safety of the convictions of eight defendants in a long running high profile trial of serious sexual offences committed against young girls.
Mr Justice Spencer
[2020] EWCA Crim 843
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.653182

Regina v Hayter: HL 3 Feb 2005

The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. The judge had directed that the jury could use the fact of the actual murderer’s conviction to support their consideration of the guilt of the middleman and the prime mover. The actual murderer’s guilt was proved by confession. The others objected that this amounted to conviction of them on the basis of the confession of the third.
Held: The appeals failed (by a majority). The value of joint trial was accepted subject to the protection of defendants. A voluntary out of court confession or admission against interest made by a defendant is an exception to the hearsay rule, and is admissible against him, but in a joint trial, the prosecution may not rely on what the maker of a confession said against a co-accused, and a trial judge must direct the jury to ignore a confession made by an accused in considering the case against a co-defendant. Some of the earlier cases on the topic would now be decided differently because of changes in the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and those case were no longer relevant. The rules against admission of such evidence should be relaxed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] UKHL 6, Times 07-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 605
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lake CACD 1976
Subject to a judge’s discretion to order separate trials in the interests of justice, there are powerful public reasons why joint offences should be tried jointly. . .
Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Appeal from – Regina v Hayter CACD 16-Apr-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, on the basis that the jury had used a conclusion about the guilt of a jointly accused to support his own conviction.
Held: Section 74 had altered the law, and earlier cases were no . .
Cited – Regina v Rhodes 1959
. .
Cited – Hollington v E Hewthorn and Co Ltd CA 1943
Decisions of an earlier tribunal were not binding or admissible in later proceedings where the earlier proceedings were before a court of criminal jurisdiction. Evidence of a prior conviction would not have been admissible in separate criminal . .
Cited – Regina v Spinks CACD 1982
Spinks was charged under section 4(1) of the 1967 Act, in that knowing or believing that a Mr Fairey had committed an arrestable offence, he acted with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution. To prove that Fairey had committed an . .
Cited – Regina v Hickey, Hickey, Robinson, Molloy CACD 30-Jul-1997
The case concerned the production for the benefit of the defence, of the prison records of a prosecution witness who was putting forward an account of a cell confession. The Appeal Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellant, . .
Cited – Lobban v The Queen PC 28-Apr-1995
(Jamaica) The judge had no discretion to exclude evidence on request of co-defendant in joint trial. The exculpatory part of co-accused statement not to be excluded since it was his right to have it put in. Those who are charged with an offence . .
Cited – HM Advocate v Kemp 1891
. .
Cited – Montes v HM Advocate HCJ 1990
The appellant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of cocaine by importing a quantity of cocaine on a ship which docked at Greenock. The trial judge directed the jury that, in . .
Cited – McIntosh v HM Advocate HCJ 1986
The appellant was convicted of supplying cannabis to a named individual at a house in Paisley. The appellant had acted with his co-accused Miss C who had made the actual supply. There was sufficient evidence against Miss C to prove that she had made . .
Cited – Rutherford v Richardson HL 1923
The decision of legal issues must depend on rigid rules of evidence necessarily general in their scope. It was very likely, therefore, in individual applications, to present an appearance of artificiality and even of inconsistency: ‘The issues . .
Cited – Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1965
Limits to Admission of Hearsay Evidence
It was not for the House to alter the admissibility of hearsay evidence on a case by case basis.
Lord Reid said: ‘I have never taken a narrow view of the functions of this House as an appellate tribunal. The common law must be developed to . .
Cited – Regina v Blastland HL 1985
The majority decision of the House in Myers v DPP ‘established the principle, never since challenged, that it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to create new exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ and ‘Hearsay evidence is not excluded because it . .
Cited – Teper v The Queen PC 1952
The defendant was charged with arson of his own shop. A woman had been heard to shout to a passing motorist ‘Your place burning and you going away from the fire’.
Held: the defendant’s alibi could not be contradicted by the evidence of a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Simmons and Another v Regina PC 3-Apr-2006
(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no . .
Cited – Persad v Trinidad and Tobago PC 23-Jul-2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the admissibility of out of court admissions as against co-defendants. Three defendants faced allegations of a series of violent crimes. The appellant said the only evidence against him for an offence of . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222206

HM Advocate v Kemp: 1891

(1891) 3 White 17
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222543

McIntosh v HM Advocate: HCJ 1986

The appellant was convicted of supplying cannabis to a named individual at a house in Paisley. The appellant had acted with his co-accused Miss C who had made the actual supply. There was sufficient evidence against Miss C to prove that she had made the supply from two sources: a statement that she had made to the police, admitting the supply, and the eye-witness testimony of her sister. The sister’s evidence was available against the appellant, but the Appeal Court quashed the appellant’s conviction on the ground that the co-accused’s statement was not evidence against the appellant and therefore the sister’s evidence was not corroborated, as it requires to be in Scots law.
Held: ‘It is plain that without the evidence of Deborah Campbell’s voluntary statement, there was no corroborated evidence of supply to Maureen Campbell. In a question with Deborah Campbell the jury were entitled to treat her voluntary statement as corroboration. However, the jury were not entitled to rely on the evidence of the voluntary statement of Deborah Campbell when considering the case against the other co-accused including the appellant. What Deborah Campbell said in her voluntary statement to the police was not evidence against the appellant.’ The co-accused’s statement made no mention of the appellant, but was none the less not admissible against him to prove the supply with which he was charged.
Lord Justice Clerk (Ross)
1986 SC 169
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222544

Regina v Croydon Youth Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 May 1997

The defendant, a 12 year old boy , had been charged, with others, with offences of violence. He denied the charges. He objected to his interview with admissions being used. On being admitted he then pleaded guilty. Later cases against co-defendants were dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption of doli incapax. The claimant was aggrieved and tried to persuade the magistrates to allow him to change his plea to one of not guilty. The magistrates agreed and ordered that the proceedings should be reopened and the case heard again by a different bench. The Director applied for judicial review.
Held: The application succeeded. The justices were wrong to think they could use the section. The purpose of the section was to rectify mistakes. It is a slip rule and should not be extended to cover situations beyond those akin to a mistake. It was wholly wrong to employ section 142(2) to allow a defendant where he could not appeal to the Crown Court because of his plea. The interests of justice also included the interests of the Courts and the public that people who had pleaded guilty with the advice of counsel should continue to be regarded as guilty and that there should be certainty and an end to litigation.
McCowan LJ Popplewell J
[1997] EWHC Admin 446, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 411
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holme v Liverpool City Justices and Another Admn 6-Dec-2004
The defendant had been convicted of dangerous driving. The victim’s mother complained of the leniency of the sentence, and the magistrates purported to re-open the sentencing under section 142, saying they had been unaware of the very serious nature . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.137391

Rex v Neal: CCA 1949

‘If some irregularity comes to the knowledge of Counsel before the verdict is returned, he should bring it to the attention of the court at the earliest possible moment so that the presiding judge may consider whether or not to discharge the jury without giving a verdict. Points of the sort ought not to be held in reserve with a view to taking them before this court when it may be, as here, too late to remedy the mistake.’
Lord Goddard CJ
[1949] 2 KB 590
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AG for the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia v Steinhoff PC 19-Jul-2005
(Akrotiri and Dhekelia) The defendant had appealed convictions for rape and attempted rape. He had criticised the arrangements for protecting the complainant when giving evidence, which had not complied with the 1999 Act. His appeal succeeded in . .
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.230907

AN v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 28 Jul 2010

A non-derogating control order had been made without the disclosure required by the decision of the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 AC 269. The issue was whether it should be quashed.
Held: The appeal as allowed. The Secretary of State was not able to satisfy the court that the statutory test for making the NCO was met and because it was unlawful for the Secretary of State to take steps to make an NCO if he knew that later on he would have to rely upon material which he was unwilling at any stage to disclose.
Maurice Kay VP CA, Rix, Stanley Burnton LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 869
Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 3(10)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others CA 16-Jul-2020
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal
The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.421102

Oberschlick v Austria: ECHR 23 May 1991

A journalist was convicted by a court which regarded itself as bound by the opinion of the court of appeal which had remitted his case to the lower court for trial after it had been dismissed by that court. The judge who presided over the court of appeal was the same judge as had presided over it on the first occasion, contrary to the code of criminal procedure. The journalist complained that the court of appeal on the second occasion was not an independent and impartial tribunal.
Held: An argument that he had impliedly waived that right because he had not raised this objection at the hearing of his appeal was rejected, on the ground that neither he nor his counsel were aware until well after the hearing of all the circumstances that provided grounds for objecting to the tribunal on the grounds of impartiality.
The Court reiterated that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance. Whilst the press must not overstep the bounds set, inter alia, in the interests of ‘the protection of the reputation and rights of others’, it is nevertheless to impart information and ideas of public interest. Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of ‘public watchdog’. Although formulated primarily with regard to the print media, these principles doubtless apply also to the audio-visual media.
(1991) 19 EHHR 389, 11662/85, [1991] ECHR 30
Worldlii, Bailii
European Court of Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Benjamin, Vanderpool and Gumbs v The Minister of Information and Broadcasting and The Attorney General for Anguilla PC 14-Feb-2001
PC (Anguilla) A first non-religious radio station had been formed, but came to include much criticism of the government. One programme was suspended by the government. The programme makers complained that this . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Stretford v The Football Association Ltd and Another CA 21-Mar-2007
The claimant was a football player’s agent. The licensing scheme required disputes, including disciplinary procedures, to be referred to arbitration. He denied that the rule had been incorporated in the contract. He also complained that the . .
Cited – Gaunt v OFCOM and Liberty QBD 13-Jul-2010
The claimant, a radio presenter sought judicial review of the respondent’s finding (against the broadcaster) that a radio interview he had conducted breached the Broadcasting Code. He had strongly criticised a proposal to ban smokers from being . .
Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.165117

Regina v Chief Constable of South Wales and Another Ex Parte Merrick: QBD 17 Feb 1994

The court considered the failure of the respondent to comply with a statutory requirement to comply with a request from a detained person to consult a solicitor ‘as soon as practicable’.
Held: For the police to deny access to solicitors at court after the court began at 10am was unlawful at common law, and an infringement of their rights. Ralph Gibson LJ referred to definitions of ‘practicable’ found respectively in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary: ‘capable of being carried out – feasible’ and ‘possible to be accomplished with known means and known resources’ respectively.
Ralph Gibson LJ
Independent 01-Apr-1994, Times 17-Feb-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 663
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances CA 1973
The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not . .

Cited by:
Cited – North Somerset District Council v Honda Motor Europe Ltd and Others QBD 2-Jul-2010
Deleayed Rates Claims Service made them Defective
The council claimed that the defendants were liable for business rates. The defendants said that the notices were defective in not having been served ‘as soon as practicable’, and further that they should not be enforced since the delay had created . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.86359

Baxter v Chief Constable of West Midlands: Admn 6 May 1998

The defendant appealed against refusal of bail after a hearing held in her absence. She was thought to have tuberculosis, and had been spitting at people from her cell. No solicitor could be found to represent her. The magistrates had thought that her sputum was infectious.
Held: In the circumstances the magistrates had been justified: ‘The only guidance that I would be inclined to give is to say that when on a bail application, a person is legally represented and the magistrates form the view that there is a risk that the applicant for bail is suffering from a highly infectious disease, the magistrates are entitled to exclude that applicant from the hearing.’
Schiemann LJ
[1998] EWHC Admin 487
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.138608

Birutis And Others v Lithuania: ECHR 28 Mar 2002

The court considered the conviction of the applicant on the basis of anonymous statements which were not tested by examination at trial.
Held: The Court criticised the means adopted by the authorities ‘in handling the anonymous evidence’.
48115/99, 47698/99, [2002] ECHR 349
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.169815

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 publication of the name of the adult defendant.
Held: A criminal court had no such power. Glidewell LJ said: ‘We are persuaded that the arguments for the appellants are correct. In our view section 39 as a matter of law does not empower a court to order in terms that the names of defendants be not published. It may be that on occasions judges who are concerned with making an order of this kind will think that it will be helpful to have some discussion about the identification of particular details and may give advice. Our combined experience is that judges in the Crown Court not infrequently give advice which representatives of the media invariably respect. But we are here concerned with the formality of what may be contained in an order under section 39. In our view, the order itself must be restricted to the terms of section 39(1), either specifically using those terms or using words to the like effect and no more.’
and ‘it is a normal principle of law that defendants in criminal proceedings should be named. Statute has on occasion given the courts power to make an order to the contrary, but only in most exceptional circumstances. Indeed . . it is obvious that a major reason for the principle is that the very fact of being named is itself a powerful part of the deterrent effect of a prosecution. The prospect of being named, in other words, is a deterrent to other people who may be tempted to commit any sort of offence.’
Glidewell LJ
[1992] 1 QB 190
Children and Young Persons Act 1988 39
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gazette Media Company Ltd. and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Teeside Crown Court CACD 26-Jul-2005
The claimants appealed an order restricting their reporting of a criminal case so as to identify the defendant.
Held: Orders preventing the naming of a defendant in order to protect associated children are unlikely to enhance any child . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.231185

Regina v McCready: CACD 14 Feb 2003

Conviction of offences of being concerned in the importation of controlled drugs, namely cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamine. McCready was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. Complaint that no adjournment before confiscation order.
Mr Justice Butterfield Lord Justice Potter His Honour Judge Findlay Baker Qc
[2003] EWCA Crim 2
Bailii
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.179112

Regina v Knighton (deceased): CACD 17 Oct 2002

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred a conviction for murder made in 1927.
Held: The Commission, and the court were to look for cases where the conviction was unsafe, for whatever reason. It was not part of that reasoning to take account of the fact that it had been a capital case. There was nothing here to undermine the safety of the verdict.
Judge, Butterfield, McCombe LLJ
Times 28-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 2227
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.177801

Serious Fraud Office and Another v LCL and Others (Ruling) (2079): ComC 28 Jul 2020

Application made by the Serious Fraud Office to vary an existing restraint order so that it has the effect of prohibiting the respondent and her mother, from dealing with their interest in two properties following a restraint order
Mr Justice Foxton
[2020] EWHC 2079 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.652980

Rolf Gustafson v Sweden: ECHR 1 Jul 1997

Article 6 was engaged by an application for compensation under a statutory compensation scheme.
23196/94, (1997) 25 EHRR 523, [1997] ECHR 41
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.165520

Bendenoun v France: ECHR 24 Feb 1994

The applicant complained of non-disclosure by the prosecution.
Held: His application failed because the undisclosed material had not been relied on by the prosecution and he had given no sufficiently specific reasons for requesting the material in question. The case concerned a provision in the tax code which was applicable to all citizens. No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1
12547/86, (1994) 18 EHRR 54, [1994] ECHR 7
Worldlii, Bailii
European Conventtion on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
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.
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.165306

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Walsh: HL 1984

Walsh faced two sets of charges. In one of which he was bailed and in the other he was remanded in custody. The Governor of the prison refused to produce him to the court for the purpose of facing the bailed proceedings.
Held: Habeas corpus may be applied for and granted on occasions such as when there is an excessive delay in bringing a prisoner up for trial.
Lord Fraser referred to Section 29 of the 1961 Act and added that: ‘so the effect of Section 29(1) of the Act of 1961, and of the circular, is that a Governor of a prison may direct a prisoner to be taken to a court if he is satisfied that his attendance at the court is desirable in the interests of justice.’
Lord Fraser
[1985] AC 154, [1984] 2 All ER 609, [1984] 3 WLR 205
Criminal Justice Act 1961 29
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 September 2021; Ref: scu.591144

Regina v Daly: CACD 23 Nov 2001

CS Kennedy LJ: ‘we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to rely to explain the silence at interview, despite the form of the caution administered to him. [Sc Secondly,] At that stage he had not seen the video film, he was therefore unaware of the full weight of the prosecution case against him and in the light of his solicitor’s advice he may have been understandably reluctant to admit a lesser but still serious offence. That made it particularly important in this case for the judge to say to the jury that they should only be prepared to draw an adverse inference if satisfied that the only sensible explanation for the appellant’s failure to give in interview the explanation which he gave in his defence statement and at trial was that at the time of the interview he had no answer to the charge, or none that would stand up to questioning and investigation. It was important that the jury not be left at liberty to draw an adverse inference notwithstanding that it might have been satisfied with the plausibility of the appellant’s explanation for his silence (see Condron v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1 at paragraph 61 and R. v. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 251, at paragraph 48).’
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell, And, Mr Justice Cooke
[2001] EWCA Crim 2643, [2002] 2 Cr App R 14
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.166921

J, Regina v: CACD 2 Jul 2001

Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of involvement in a riot in prison in April 1998. They and others were interviewed in June and July 1998, and papers submitted to CPS at the end of July 1998. Informations were laid in February 2000, and the trial started on 31 January 2001. Two issues arose: From when was the time to be calculated, and then as to the remedy to be provided.
Held: Under the Convention, the term ‘charge’ has a broader meaning than it would in UK law. In this case, but not always, its use was as here.
The judge at trial had erred; at the trial of a defendant on a criminal charge, it is not only the defendant who is to be considered. The public are interested in whether or not defendants are tried for criminal offences they have committed. As is the case with many of the rights which are contained in the Convention, the courts are called upon to hold the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the public. ‘the judge failed to distinguish between the conduct which constitutes the unlawful act for the purpose of Article 6(1) and the remedy which the court provides for the unlawful act if there has indeed been an unlawful act. If a person complains of a contravention of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6, and if the court comes to the conclusion that there has been a contravention, then at the request of the complainant the court is required to provide the appropriate remedy. If the court is willing and able to provide the appropriate remedy, then the court is not compelled to take the course of staying the proceedings. That is a remedy which the court can grant, but it is certainly not a remedy which it is required to grant. ‘
The Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Wright, Grogson JJ
[2001] EWCA Crim 1568, [2001] 1 WLR 1869, [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 272
Bailii
Eurpean Convention on Human Rights 6(1), Criminal Justice Act 1972 36
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Deweer v Belgium ECHR 27-Feb-1980
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid.
Held: Since the payment was made . .
Cited – Eckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
Cited – Foti and Others v Italy ECHR 10-Dec-1982
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Preliminary objection rejected (ex officio examination); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1; Non necessary to examine Art. 13; Just satisfaction . .
Cited – Corigliano v Italy ECHR 10-Dec-1982
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (substantially the same); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Violation of Art. . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Cited – Bell v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another PC 30-Apr-1985
(Jamaica) Failure to provide trial within a reasonable time. There had been a lapse of seven years between the date of the alleged offence and the date of the retrial. The view was taken that there was specific prejudice caused as a consequence of . .
Cited – Darmalingum v The State PC 10-Jul-2000
(Mauritius) The constitutional right of a defendant to have his case tried within a reasonable time applied not just to the initial trial but also to any appeal arising from that trial. Where there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay between . .
Cited – Flowers v The Queen PC 30-Oct-2000
(Jamaica) Where a defendant claimed that his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, it was correct for the appellate courts to take account of the fact that it remained clear that the defendant was guilty of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.263611

Rex v Gee: CCA 1936

The defendants appealed, complaining of defects in the commital procedure.
Held: The proceedings committing the defendants for trial were so defective that there was no lawful committal. It followed that the document purporting to be an indictment was not an indictment and the appellants could not be tried on it. Goddard J said: ‘Considering that since 1933 a committal by magistrates is substituted for a presentment by a grand jury, it is of the greatest importance that there should be no deviation from the requirements of the Statute’.
Lord Hewart CJ, du Parcq and Goddard JJ
[1936] 2 KB 442
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.267617

Regina v Bullock: CCA 1964

The appellant was granted leave to move for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the quarter sessions and the Court of Criminal Appeal then sat as a Divisional Court to hear the motion. Quarter sessions had no jurisdiction to commit an offender to themselves for sentence. s31 of the 1879 Act provided ‘quarter sessions may by their order . . vary the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction or may make such other order in the matter as they think just and by such order exercise any power which the court of summary jurisdiction might have exercised.’ The appellant had been sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment at Marlborough Street Magistrates’ Court. He appealed to the County of London Sessions and having dismissed his appeal against conviction the quarter session purported to exercise the powers of committal which the magistrate would have had. They then sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ imprisonment.
Held: Lord Parker CJ said: ‘It immediately strikes one as highly artificial that a court can commit a person for sentence to itself the essence of committing being a committal by one court to another, from a court of lower jurisdiction to a court of higher jurisdiction. It is also to be observed that if the course taken by the London Sessions is right, Parliament has here provided in effect a double appeal on sentence.’
Lord Parker CJ
[1964] 1 QB 481
Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ashton , Regina v; Regina v Draz; Regina v O’Reilly CACD 5-Apr-2006
The court considered three appeals where there had been a procedural irregularity, and where the judge had taken some step to overcome that irregularity. In two cases the Crown Court judge had reconstituted himself as a district judge to correct a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.240433

Rex v Dyson: CCA 1908

The court adopted the practice for selecting cases for which leave to appeal should be given which was set down in Makin
[1908] 2 KB 454
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales PC 12-Dec-1893
The accused had been charged with the murder of an infant who had been given into their care by the child’s mother after payment of a fee. They appealed after admission of evidence that several other infants had been received by the accused persons . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.184204

Regina v Caslin: CCA 1961

The court considered its ability to substitute a conviction for a lesser offence on appeal after finding the conviction unsafe.
Held: ‘the jurisdiction of this court does not depend upon whether the judge did in fact sum up on the alternative basis, but upon whether the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved him guilty of that other offence. No doubt, therefore, this is a jurisdiction which must be exercised with great caution, and the fact that the jury never had a proper direction as to the alternative offence is a very relevant consideration’.
Lord Parker CJ
(1961) 45 Cr App R 47
Criminal Appeal Act 1907 5(2)
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.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.183248

Regina v Emmett and Another: HL 16 Oct 1997

The defendants had been arrested as they unloaded four tons of cannabis from a boat.
Held: Their appeal against a confiscation order was allowed despite the acceptance of a statement when the acceptance had been based on a mistake of law or fact. There should be a ‘strong presumption that except by specific provision the legislature will not exclude a right of appeal as of right or with leave where such a right is ordinarily available.’ (Lord Steyn)
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Clyde
Times 17-Nov-1997, Gazette 03-Dec-1997, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 247, [1997] UKHL 48, [1998] AC 773, [1997] 4 All ER 737, [1997] 3 WLR 737
House of Lords, Bailii
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Cain HL 1985
The sentencing judge had exceeded his powers by making a criminal bankruptcy order. S40 appeared to deny a right of appeal against such an order.
Held: There is a strong presumption that except by specific provision the legislature will not . .

Cited by:
Cited – Jones and others v Ceredigion County Council CA 28-Jul-2005
The parties had challenged the respondent’s decision not to provide free transport to school. The judge granted certificates allowing leave to apply direct to the House of Lords on two issues, and to the Court of Appeal on one other. The House later . .
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.135213

King v Burdett: 1795

A new trial was moved for upon affidavit, that the jury took an Act of Common Council out with them, and that printed libels were spread against the defendant; and it was denied: for as to the first it differs from The Lady Ive’s case, where they took a map of one side, which was evidence on neither side : but this was an act of neither side, and evidence on both; but admitted to be irregular. Et per Holt CJ
So if a jury sat at their own charge, it is fineable, but that verdict shall stand ; otherwise if at the charge of one of the parties, and the verdict is found for him. Vide Mo 599.
Holt CJ
[1795] EngR 2290, (1795) 2 Salk 645, (1795) 91 ER 546 (D)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.354635

Darmalingum v The State: PC 10 Jul 2000

(Mauritius) The constitutional right of a defendant to have his case tried within a reasonable time applied not just to the initial trial but also to any appeal arising from that trial. Where there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay between the suspects first arrest and his trial, and also after trial and before the hearing of his appeal should properly lead to the conviction being overturned. The constitution should be ready in a purposive rather than a technical way. The right to a fair hearing is one of three separate guarantees contained in section 10(1) of the constitution, along with he right to a hearing within a reasonable time and to a hearing by an independent and impartial court established by law.
A delay of 15 years was inordinate and inexcusable.
The defendant had had the shadow of proceedings hanging over him for about 15 years and there was therefore manifestly a flagrant breach of section 10(1). As to the reedy, Lord Steyn said: ‘The normal remedy for a failure of this particular guarantee, viz the reasonable time guarantee, would be to quash the conviction. That is, of course, the remedy for a breach of the two other requirements of section 10(1), viz (1) a fair hearing and (2) a trial before an independent and impartial court. Counsel for the prosecution argued however that the appropriate remedy in this case is to affirm the conviction and to remit the matter of sentence to the Supreme Court so that it may substitute a non-custodial sentence in view of the delay. The basis of this submission was that the guilt of the defendant is obvious and that it would therefore be wrong to allow him to escape conviction. This argument largely overlooks the importance of the constitutional guarantee as already explained. Their Lordships do not wish to be overly prescriptive on this point. They do not suggest that there may not be circumstances in which it might arguably be appropriate to affirm the conviction but substitute a non-custodial sentence, eg in a case where there had been a plea of guilty or where the inexcusable delay affected convictions on some counts but not others. But their Lordships are quite satisfied that the only disposal which will properly vindicate the constitutional rights of the defendant in the present case would be the quashing of the convictions.’
Lord Steyn
Times 18-Jul-2000, [2000] UKPC 30, Appeal No 42 of 1999, [2000] 1 WLR 2303
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Distinguished – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
Cited – Aaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
Cited – Ramawat Dosoruth v The State of Mauritius The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 21-Oct-2004
PC (Mauritius) The defendant challenged his conviction for having taken a bribe saying there had been an injustice, and seeking protection directly under the constitution. The evidence against him was that a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Cited – J, Regina v CACD 2-Jul-2001
Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.159418

Campbell v The Queen (Jamaica): PC 16 Dec 1996

The defendant appealed his conviction of murder. The United Nations Human Rights Committee had expressed the view that he had not had a fair trial. The judge was said to have been brusque with him, and though a child, he had been held overnight at a police station.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed: ‘The question for their Lordships is whether the conduct of the judge was such as to cause a miscarriage of justice. Having examined the detail of the allegations made against him their Lordships are satisfied that while he might have exercised a greater degree of sensitivity in the delicate task of handling a witness of such tender years, the trial was not unfair nor did any miscarriage of justice occur. The judge gave a full and careful summing up of which no criticism has been made to their Lordships.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Mustill

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Clyde
[1996] UKPC 49
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.159208

Eckle v Germany: ECHR 15 Jul 1982

Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, specified in article 6.1 began to run as soon as a person was charged; that ‘charge’ was defined as the official notification given to an individual by that competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence. The court observed that mitigation of sentence and discontinuance on the grounds of delay did not deprive the applicants of their status as victims, and ‘The Court does not exclude the possibility that this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention. In such circumstances, to duplicate the domestic process with proceedings before the Commission and the Court would hardly be compatible with the subsidiary character of the machinery of protection established by the Convention. The Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines. This subsidiary character is all the more pronounced in the case of States which have incorporated the Convention into their domestic legal order and which treat the rules of the Convention as directly applicable.’
The test as to whether a person has been ‘charged’ for the purposes of article 6(1) is whether the situation of the person has been substantially affected.
R. Ryssdal, President
8130/78, (1982) 5 EHRR 1, [1982] ECHR 4
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Deweer v Belgium ECHR 27-Feb-1980
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid.
Held: Since the payment was made . .

Cited by:
Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Cited – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
See Also – Eckle v Germany (Article 50) ECHR 21-Jun-1983
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention . .
Cited – Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Cited – Department for Work and Pensions v Courts Admn 3-May-2006
The appellant challenged stays of proceedings by the respondent magistrates court for abuse of process infringing the defendants’ human right to a fair trial. The magistrates had fund that being faced with dismissal of a summary case through delay, . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Burns v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) PC 15-Dec-2008
The accused was arrested in February 2003, but then only brought to court in December 2004. He said that he had not had a fair trial within a reasonable time. The parties disputed when the time began to run from, from the date of arrest or his first . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2010
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide after being given home leave on a secure ward by the respondent mental hospital. A claim in negligence had been settled, but the parents now appealed refusal of their claim that the hospital had failed . .
Cited – Zaichenko v Russia ECHR 18-Feb-2010
(First Section) The claimant complaned that he had not been allowed access to a lawyer when being questioned by police when he was not under arrest. He had been stopped driving home from work and his car inspected by the police after reports of . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
Cited – J, Regina v CACD 2-Jul-2001
Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.164908

Regina v James Archibald Greene: CANI 24 Mar 2000

The appellant had been convicted of serious sexual assault against a child. The child later made inconsistent allegations. The appellant sought records from the hospital of interviews with the child. The hospital refused to reveal these without a court order. The Act gave power to order production of documents held by third parties not otherwise involved in the proceedings.
Carswell LCJ
[2000] NIECA 6
Bailii
Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 25(1)
Northern Ireland

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.162954

Howarth v The United Kingdom: ECHR 21 Sep 2000

The defendant had been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, but the crown appealed, and two years later, a custodial sentence was substituted.
Held: The delay was a breach of the Convention’s reasonable time requirement under article 6 of the convention. The reasonableness must be looked at in the context of the particular case, including its complexity. Here there was no good reason advanced for the delay. The delay was unreasonable. ‘According to the Court’s case-law, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the authorities dealing with the case.’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 3; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 10-Oct-2000, 38081/97, [2000] ECHR 423
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Pelissier and Sassi v France ECHR 25-Mar-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-a; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Cited – Bullen and Soneji v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2009
The claimants said that the confiscation and money-laundering proceedings taken against them had taken too long, with delays of 43 months out of a total of 66 month case attributable to the state.
Held: The delay was too long. The applicants . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.165928

Ilijkov v Bulgaria: ECHR 26 Jul 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-4; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
‘[T]he [authorities] applied law and practice under which there was a presumption that remand in custody was necessary in cases where the sentence faced went beyond a certain threshold of severity …[While] the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element …. the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of pre-trial detention . .
That is particularly true in the present case where under the applicable domestic law and practice the characterisation in law of the facts – and thus the sentence faced by the applicant – was determined by the prosecution authorities without judicial control of the question whether or not the evidence supported reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed an offence attracting a sentence of the relevant length . . The only other ground for the applicant’s lengthy detention was the domestic courts’ finding that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting release. However, that finding was not based on an analysis of all pertinent facts. The authorities regarded the applicant’s arguments that he had never been convicted, that he had a family and a stable way of life, and that after the passage of time any possible danger of collusion or absconding had receded, as irrelevant. They did so because by virtue of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court’s practice the presumption under that provision was only rebuttable in very exceptional circumstances where even a hypothetical possibility of absconding, re-offending or collusion was excluded due to serious illness or other exceptional factors. It was moreover incumbent on the detained person to prove the existence of such exceptional circumstances, failing which he was bound to remain in detention on remand throughout the proceedings . . The Court reiterates that continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty. Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 ss 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, ssss 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, ss 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, ssss 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, ssss 152 and 162-165; and Jecius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000?IX] ssss 93 and 94). Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases.’
33977/96, [2001] ECHR 489
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5(3)
Cited by:
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.164794

Regina v Chan-Fook: CACD 15 Nov 1993

‘Actual bodily harm’ under the 1861 Act, may include injury to any part of the body, including internal organs, the nervous system and the brain. It is capable of including psychiatric injury, but not mere emotion such as fear, distress or panic. ‘Similarly an injury can be caused to someone by injuring their health; an assault may have the consequence of infecting the victim with a disease or causing the victim to become ill. The injury may be internal and may not be accompanied by any external injury.’ . . and: ‘In any case where psychiatric injury is relied upon as the basis for an allegation of bodily harm, and the matter has not been admitted by the defence, expert evidence should be called by the prosecution. It should not be left to be inferred by the jury from the general facts of the case. In the absence of appropriate expert evidence, a question whether or not the assault occasioning psychiatric injury should not be left to the jury . . There is no reason for refusing to have regard to psychiatric injury as the consequence of an assault if there is properly qualified evidence that it has occurred.’ and
‘In the case of Attia, the Court of Appeal discussed where the borderline should be drawn between, on the one hand, the emotions of distress and grief and on the other hand some actual psychiatric illness such as anxiety, neurosis or a reactive depression. The authorities recognised that there is a line to be drawn and whether any given case falls on one side or the other is a matter for expert evidence. The civil cases are also concerned with the broader question of the boundaries of the law of negligence and the duty of care, which do not concern us.
Accordingly, the phrase ‘actual bodily harm’ is capable of including psychiatric injury. But it does not include mere emotion such as fear, distress or panic, nor does it include, as such, states of mind that are not themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical condition. The phrase ‘state of mind’ is not a scientific one and should be avoided in considering whether or not the psychiatric injury has been caused; its use is likely to create in the minds of the jury the impression that something which is no more than a strong emotion, such as extreme fear or panic, can amount to actual bodily harm. It cannot. Similarly, juries should not be directed that an assault which causes a hysterical and nervous condition is an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Where there is evidence that the assault has caused some psychiatric injury, the jury should be directed that injury is capable of amounting to actual bodily harm; otherwise there should be no reference to the mental state of the victim following the assault unless it be relevant to some other aspect of the case, as it was in Roberts’.
Hobhouse J
Times 19-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 15-Nov-1993, [1994] 99 Cr App R 147
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 47
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Dica CACD 5-May-2004
Reckless HIV transmission – Grievous Bodily Harm
The defendant appealed against his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He had HIV/Aids, and was found to have transmitted the disease by intercourse when the victims were not informed of his condition. It was not suggested that any rape . .
Approved – Regina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
Cited – Regina v Ireland CACD 14-May-1996
Silent telephone calls which resulted in psychiatric damage to the victim could constitute an ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ for the purposes of section 47 of the 1861 Act. Swinton Thomas LJ said: ‘The early cases pre-date the invention of . .
Cited – Regina v Burstow Admn 29-Jul-1996
Grievous bodily harm can be inflicted by a stalker without direct physical contact and can include psychological damage. The statute could be interpreted to reflect current standards. . .
Cited – Regina v Morris CACD 22-Oct-1997
An allegation of assault occasioning bodily harm, where the harm alleged was of a purely psychological nature, must be supported by psychiatric evidence. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.86328

Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher: HL 1961

The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new ground. While the Appellate Committee always pays close attention to the formulation of questions certified by the Court of Appeal, it is not bound by the terms of the certification: ‘one thing which this House considers in deciding whether to give leave in a civil case is whether the case involves a point of law which ought to be considered by this House. But once leave is given this House can and does consider other points as well. Sub-section (2) could well mean that, whereas in civil cases the existence of such a point is only one element, though an important element, in deciding whether to give leave, in criminal cases it is an indispensable element.’
Lord Denning said: ‘ the general principle of English law that, subject to very limited exceptions, drunkenness is no defence to a criminal charge, nor is a defect of reason produced by drunkenness. This principle was stated by Sir Matthew Hale in his Pleas of the Crown, I, page 32, in words which I would repeat here: ‘This vice’ [drunkenness] ‘doth deprive men of the use of reason, and puts many men into a perfect,’ but temporary phrenzy. . By the laws of England such a person shall have no privilege by this voluntary contracted madness, but shall have the same judgment as if he were in his right senses.’
Lord Reid, Lord Denning, Lord Goddard, Lord Tucker, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
[1961] 3 All ER 299, [1961] UKHL 2, [1963] AC 349
Bailii
Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Milne and Others v Commissioner of Police for City of London HL 1940
The House is not bound on an appeal brought pursuant to a certificate granted under section 1(6) of the 1907 Act to limit the appeal to the certified point. Lord Atkin discussed the 1907 Act: ‘I mention the section in order to support the view that . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Ceredigion County Council v Jones and others HL 23-May-2007
The parties had disputed the provision of free travel to school, and permission had been granted for a leapfrog appeal direct to the House of Lords. The Council then sought instead to take the matter to the Court of Appeal. The claimants said that . .
Followed – Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland HL 3-Oct-1961
The Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland certified that their decision involved two points of law of general public importance, namely whether, the defendant’s plea of insanity having been rejected by the jury, it was open to the accused to . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Regina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.188786

Stephen Jordan v The United Kingdom (1): ECHR 14 Mar 2000

A commanding officer had decided that a soldier should be held in custody pending trial. The soldier complained that since the same commanding officer would later be involved in the preparation of the case against him, that decision was tainted and that he had not had a fair hearing. Furthermore he complained that he had not been given any effective means of redress. It was held that the procedure infringed the soldier’s rights to a fair trial, and also that no remedy was given.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 17-Mar-2000, 30280/96, [2000] ECHR 103
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire CA 27-Mar-2002
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.165830

Lamy v Belgium: ECHR 30 Mar 1989

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
As a general rule all evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, giving him an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question witnesses against him.
[1989] ECHR 5, 10444/83, (1989) 11 EHRR 529
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.165038

United States Government v Montgomery and Another: HL 6 Feb 2001

An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the list of designated countries. Though the Act prevented enforcement on English orders predating the Act there was no corresponding provision to prevent such action for similar foreign orders. It was possible also to recover interest on the original sum.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Scott of Foscote
Times 06-Feb-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 196, [2001] 1 All ER 815, [2001] UKHL 3, [2002] ILPr 27
House of Lords, Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories)(Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994 No 1639), Criminal Justice Act 1988 77
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Appeal from – Government of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Frank Adam Moran (Attorney General’s Reference No 25 of 2001) CACD 27-Jul-2001
The defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements, and cheating the public revenue by understating his profits as a market trader over a protracted period. The judge made a confiscation order equal to the amount of undeclared profit. On . .
See also – Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Cited – Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 30-Jan-2004
The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Crown Court at Bradford CA 19-Dec-2003
A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder.
Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. . .
Cited – Government of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 29-Oct-2008
The applicant said that the defendant had unlawfully failed to provide detailed guidance under section 10 of the 1985 Act, on the circumstances under which a prosecution might lie of a person performing acts which might assist another to commit . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.90078

Rex v Gascoine And Others: 28 Feb 1837

In a case of felony, where there is counsel for the prisoner, the counsel for the prosecution ought always to open the case, but he should not open if the prisoner has no counsel, unless there be some peculiarity in the facts of the case to require it.
[1837] EngR 538, (1837) 7 Car and P 772, (1837) 173 ER 336 (B)
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.313655

Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another: HL 31 Jan 2007

The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in a carousel fraud. The defendant had complained of the huge bills from the receiver.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The receiver’s remuneration had not yet been approved by the court, and the House could not comment on it. The case of Hughes states clearly and correctly the somewhat opaque relationship between the general law of receivership and the detailed provisions of CJA 1988. CPR 69.7 has not overruled Hughes.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
Times 01-Feb-2007, [2007] UKHL 2, [2007] 1 WLR 386, [2007] 2 All ER 370
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Criminal Justice Act 1988, Civil Procedure Rules 69.7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rezvi HL 24-Jan-2002
Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant’s human rights. . .
Appeal from – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
See Also – Capewell v Customs and Excise and Another (No 2) CA 29-Jul-2005
The Commissioners had been appointed as receiver of the claimant’s assets. The receivership was later discharged, but should have been discharged earlier, the court had the power not only to calculate the level of remuneration but also who should be . .
Cited – Hopkins v Worcester and Birmingham Canal Proprietors 1868
The power to appoint a receiver is part of the court’s auxiliary equitable jurisdiction and is one of the oldest remedies in the Court of Chancery. It is used in situations requiring interim protection of property (and the income of property), . .
Cited – Boehm v Goodall ChD 24-Nov-1910
Receiver – Partnership Action – Consent Order appointing Receiver and Manager
– Payments by Receiver – Insufficiency of Assets – Indemnity – Claim
against Partners personally.
In an action for dissolution of partnership a receiver . .
Cited – Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd ChD 1987
Vinelott J doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs . .
Cited – Evans v Clayhope Properties Ltd CA 1988
Nourse LJ doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs. . .
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 Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.248329

Regina v Woolwich Justices ex parte Toohey, Toohey v Metropolitan Police: 1965

The court described the limits for the admission of psychiatric evidence in criminal trials.
[1965] 49 Cr App R 148
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pinfold, Mackenney v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2003
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.190489

Regina v Hennessy (Timothy): 1978

The court described the duty on a prosecutor to disclose evidence: ‘those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led by them or made available to the defence.’ As to the correctness of the convicion for importing drugs: ‘It matters not for the purpose of conviction what the goods were as long as he knew that he was bringing into the United Kingdom goods which he should not have been bringing in’.
Lawton LJ
(1978) 68 Cr App R 419
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD 15-Jul-1992
The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
Cited – Regina v Rankine CACD 1986
R appealed his conviction for unlawfully supplying a controlled drug. Officers claimed to have seen him, but the court agreed not to order disclosure of their observation location.
Held: The appeal failed. It was important not to discourage . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.193833

Goldson and McGlashan v The Queen: PC 23 Mar 2000

PC (Jamaica) The holding of an identification parade was desirable where the witness’s claim to have known and recognised the suspect is disputed. Lord Hoffmann referring to the defendant’s denial that he was the person whom the identifying witness Claudette claimed to know by his nickname: ‘The truth of this issue could have been tested by an identification parade. If Claudette had failed to pick out the accused on the parade, her assertion that the accused were known to her would have been shown to be false. By not holding identification parades, the police had denied the accused an opportunity to demonstrate conclusively that she was not telling the truth. On the other hand, if she had picked them out, the prosecution case would have been strengthened, although the judge would have had to direct the jury that the evidence went only to support her claim that she knew them and did not in any way confirm her identification of the gunmen.’ The function of the parade in such circumstances is not the normal one of testing the accuracy of the witness’s recollection of the person identified, but to test the honesty of her assertion that she knew the accused.
Lord Hoffmann said that ‘a dock identification is unsatisfactory and ought not to be allowed,’ although ‘Unless the witness had provided the police with a complete identification by name or description, so as to enable the police to take the accused into custody, the previous identification should take the form of an identification parade.’
Lord Hoffmann
[2000] UKPC 9, Appeal No 64 of 1998, (2000) 56 WIR 444
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ebanks (Jurt) v The Queen PC 16-Feb-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that identification evidence had been wrongly admitted and also if that appeal failed against the sentence of death. Though the witness knew the defendant, an identification . .
Cited – John v The State PC 16-Mar-2009
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The evidence against him was of identification by a man, also criminally involved, who had been given immunity. No identification parade was held.
Held: It was clear from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 August 2021; Ref: scu.163222

Adolf v Austria: ECHR 26 Mar 1982

An elderly lady complained that the applicant had assaulted her. The police investigated and reported back to the prosecutor who referred the matter to the Innsbruck District Court. The court registered the case as a ‘punishable act’ under section 83 of the Penal Code for the infliction of bodily harm. In a decision relating to the costs of a medical opinion the court referred to ‘the criminal proceedings’ against the applicant, who was described as ‘the accused’. Later, at the request of the prosecutor, the court terminated the proceedings under a provision of the Penal Code which provided for such termination if the offence carried no more than a moderate penalty, the guilt of the subject was slight, the act had no more than trifling consequences and punishment was not necessary to deter the subject from committing criminal offences. In giving the reasons for its decision the court recounted the facts of the assault, with no indication that these were the subject of challenge by the applicant (as they were) and ruled that the injury caused was insignificant, that ‘the fault . . of the accused may be described as insignificant’ and that the character of the applicant ‘gives cause to expect that he will conduct himself properly in future’. On these facts the Court concluded that there was a criminal charge, although it was unnecessary to determine the precise moment at which the applicant was charged, and that article 6 was engaged. But there was held to be no breach of the article, since the applicant had been in effect exonerated by the Supreme Court. In contrast with the present case, however, there were formal proceedings against the applicant in a criminal court; he was ‘the accused’; the proceedings could have culminated in his being punished, although in the event they did not; and there was a reasoned judicial decision which, on its face, found that he had committed an assault, although his fault was said to be minor. The expression ‘charged with a criminal offence’. is to be interpreted as having an autonomous meaning in the context of the Convention
8269/78, (1982) 4 EHRR 313, [1982] ECHR 2
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – R, Regina (on the Application of) v Durham Constabulary and Another HL 17-Mar-2005
The appellant, a boy aged 15, had been warned as to admitted indecent assaults on girls. He complained that it had not been explained to him that the result would be that his name would be placed on the sex offenders register. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.164910

In re K (Minors) (Wardship: Criminal Proceedings): FD 24 Aug 1987

Children had been interviewed by the police before they became wards of court.
Held: It would be a constitutional impropriety for the wardship court to intervene in the statutory process governing the conduct of a criminal trial and in matters within the jurisdiction of the Crown Court so as to grant or refuse leave for minors to be called as witnesses at a criminal trial.
Waterhouse J said: ‘In many cases, the wardship court is likely to be involved at an early stage because leave will have been sought for the police to interview a ward. In such circumstances it is inevitable that the court will have to perform a balancing exercise, weighing the potential damage to the child against the public interest, as a responsible parent would do. In reaching a decision, the best interests of a child may not be the first and paramount consideration . . ‘ and ‘Mrs Puxon accepts on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service that, in general, it is the practice of the police to obtain the consent of a parent who has the custody of a child before interviewing the child as a potential witness. Similarly, the police work in close co-operation with social services departments in whose care children have been placed and obtain the consent of the department (as in this case) before interviewing a child in care. It is accepted also that, in the case of a ward of court, leave should be obtained from the wardship court before an interview by the police takes place.’ and ‘Once a prosecution has been instituted however, the statutory procedure must (it is said) take its normal course. The Crown Prosecution Service will, of course, consider any representation that may be made by a parent or a local authority about the potential adverse impact upon a child of having to give evidence. This may be one of the matters to be considered in deciding whether or not to proceed with particular charges, but the discretion is vested in the prosecuting authority rather than the parent or the local authority. In the present case, it is said further, an extraordinary and anomalous situation would arise, if the wardship court were to intervene, because the minors might be ‘protected’ from the operation of the statutory rules governing the compellability of witnesses, whereas the other children involved in the case would have no similar protection.’
He concluded: ‘I have no doubt that I should decline to exercise the wardship jurisdiction by either giving leave for the minors to be called as witnesses or by giving a direction in the matter in another form. In my judgment, it is neither necessary nor appropriate in child abuse cases for the Crown Prosecution Service to seek the leave of the wardship court to call a ward as a witness either before or after committal proceedings.
It is necessary, first of all, to set my conclusion in its proper context. In many cases, the wardship court is likely to be involved at an early stage because leave will have to be sought for the police to interview a ward. In such circumstances it is inevitable that the court will have to perform a balancing exercise, weighing the potential damage to the child against the public interest, as a responsible parent would do. In reaching a decision, the best interests of a child may not be the first and paramount consideration, for reasons that I have sufficiently explained. It is clear also that the court will have in mind that, if leave to interview the child is granted, a prosecution based on the child’s evidence, at least in part, may ensue.’
Waterhouse J
[1988] Fam 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 August 2021; Ref: scu.588165

Sambasivam v Director of Public Prosecutions, Federation of Malaya: PC 1950

(Malaya) The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court after a lawful trial is not restricted to the fact that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. It is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication: ‘The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The maxim ‘Res judicata pro veritate accipitur’ is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings.’
Lord Dermott
[1950] AC 458
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Applied – Regina v Wilmot CACD 1989
Wilmot was charged with a series of six predatory rapes, committed by picking up women, some prostitutes, in one or other of two cars. The court considered the cross admissibility of similar fact evidence.
Held: Glidewell LJ said: ‘It has been . .
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 . .
Explained – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.221711

Sambasivam v The Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaysia (Malaya): PC 30 Mar 1950

Malaya – The appellant challenged his conviction for carrying a firearm and ammunition. He had been tried under simplified emergency procedures and sentenced to death. The prosecution had adduced evidence of possession on the same occasion of unlawful possession by him of .38 ammunition in respect of which he had been acquitted at a previous trial and of which acquittal the assessors in the subsequent trial were not informed.
Held:His appeal succeeded. The prosecution was not entitled to challenge the validity of the acquittal in that way and that the appellant was entitled to rely on it in so far as it might be relevant to his defence.
Lord MacDermott said: ‘The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication.’
Lord MacDermott
[1950] UKPC 7, [1950] AC 458, (1950) 66 TLR (Pt 2) 254
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.446077

Bartlett v Smith: 1843

‘Where a question arises as to the admissibility of evidence, the facts upon which its admissibility depends are to be determined by the judge, and not by the jury. If the opposite course were adopted, it would be equivalent to leaving it to the jury to say whether a particular thing were evidence or not.’
Alderson B
(1843) 11 M and W 483
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.224429

SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): SC 11 Apr 2017

The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has reasonable cause to believe the person to be guilty of the offence with which they are charged and b) the law relating to the offence is compatible with article 8?’ The appellant a Somali national fled and sought asylum here. Her identity papers were false, and she was charged under the 2006 Act despite agreement that she would not have been able to obtain proper papers.
Held: The appeal failed. When deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings, the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) must to apply a two stage test; first, whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction; if so whether the prosecution would be in the public interest.
Article 8 while broad was not so broad as to include all acts of a public authority even when they might encroach more than minimally on the lives of individuals.
Lord Toulson said: ‘The duty of the CPS is to the public, not to the victim or to the suspect, who have separate interests. To recognise a duty of care towards victims or suspects or both, would put the CPS in positions of potential conflict, and would also open the door to collateral interlocutory civil proceedings and trials, which would not be conducive to the best operation of the criminal justice system. Similar considerations are relevant when considering the applicability of article 8 in the context of a decision to prosecute. A decision to prosecute does not of itself involve a lack of respect for the autonomy of the defendant but places the question of determining his or her guilt before the court, which will itself be responsible for deciding ancillary questions of bail or remand in custody and the like.’
Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2017] UKSC 30, [2017] WLR(D) 270, [2017] Crim LR 712, [2017] 1 WLR 1401, UKSC 2014/0148
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary
Identity Cards Act 2006, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Fregenet Asfaw HL 21-May-2008
The House considered the point of law: ‘If a defendant is charged with an offence not specified in section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to what extent is he entitled to rely on the protections afforded by article 31 of the 1951 . .
Appeal from – SXH v Crown Prosecution Service CA 6-Feb-2014
The claimant challenged being charged with an offence under the 2006 Act, saying that it engaged and interfered with her Article 8 Human Rights. A Somali national, she fled, claiming asylum here, but her travel documents were found to be false. All . .
Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited – G v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2011
The appellant aged 15, had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 12. He pleaded guilty to a charge of rape of a child under 13, contrary to section 5 of the 2003 Act, on the written basis that the intercourse was consensual in fact (although by reason . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Cited – Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
Cited – Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 16-Nov-1994
The Court upheld decisions striking out actions for negligence brought by claimants who had been arrested and held in custody during criminal investigations which were later discontinued. The Crown Prosecution Service owes no general duty of care to . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .

Cited by:
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.581648

Regina v Jeffries: CACD 1968

[1968] CLY 661
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.211388

A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc: CACD 13 Jan 2006

The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the trial were be held in camera. The claimant media bodies now sought leave to report the hearings. Though some evidence would be given in camera, it would then be made available.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘The purpose of the notice under Rule 16.10(1) is to enable those affected to be given a proper opportunity to consider how best to deal with it. In our judgment this notice, set in the context of the other available material, was sufficient for the purposes of Rule 16.10. No one can have been in any doubt that both limbs of Rule 16.10 (1) were engaged. ‘ Leave to appeal should be given to both parties. The starting point is that every infringement of the principle of open justice is significant. We emphasise that does not mean that it will always be appropriate for leave to appeal to be given when a judge has decided that the whole or part of a trial should take place in camera.’ Where the applicatin had been recorded rather than a shorthand writer employed, the transcript should be checked by the judge who heard the application before it was presented to the Court of Appeal.
‘Having examined the material, in our judgment, the substantial risk of prejudice to national security and to the administration of justice without an order for an in-camera hearing to the extent ordered by the judge is unequivocally established. The in-camera order will enable A to be provided with material which may assist in the preparation of his defence, while simultaneously ensuring that the prosecution is not forced to discontinue the prosecution. ‘
President of the Queens Bench Division, Justice Openshaw, Sir Paul Kennedy
[2006] EWCA Crim 4, Times 19-Jan-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1361
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78, Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 16.10(1) 67.2, Criminal Justice Act 1988 8159
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Ekbatani v Sweden ECHR 26-May-1988
The defendant was convicted of threatening a civil servant. His appeal was dealt with without a hearing in the Court of Appeal. The Court confirmed the decision.
Held: Though the Court confirmed that if there had been a public hearing at first . .
Cited – Regina v Beck ex parte The Daily Telegraph, Ex parte The Telegraph Plc 1992
. .
Cited – Re Guardian Newspapers and Others CACD 20-Sep-1993
An appeal against an ‘in camera’ crown court order to the Court of Appeal is to be on paper submissions. The court set out the procedure on appeal against order for a trial to be held in camera. These rules were not ultra vires. Even though the . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte The Telegraph Plc CACD 1993
The court considered the effect of a jury trial in balancing pre-trial prejudicial publicity. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘In determining whether publication of matter would cause a substantial risk of prejudice to a future trial, a court should credit the . .
Cited – Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others CACD 12-Jun-2001
When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order . .

Cited by:
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
Cited – Yam, Regina v CACD 28-Jan-2008
An order had been made for the trial of the defendant on a charge of murder to be held excluding both press and public. The Order had been made in the interests of national security and for the protection of the identity of a witness or other . .
Cited – Yam v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that since part of the trial had been in camera the result was unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court addressed submissions advanced on his behalf indicating how substantially . .
Cited – Yam v Attorney General Misc 27-Feb-2014
Central Criminal Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.237590

W (Children), Re; SW and KSW v Portsmouth City Council and ISW, AJW, EDW; Re W (children: concurrent care and criminal proceedings): CA 1 Jul 2009

Thorpe, Wall, Elias LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 644, [2009] 2 Cr App R 23, [2009] Fam Law 795, [2009] 3 FCR 1, [2009] 2 FLR 1106
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re W (Children) (Family proceedings: Evidence) (Abuse: Oral Evidence) SC 3-Mar-2010
The court considered the approach to be taken when considering whether to order a child’s attendance at court in care proceedings. It was argued that the starting point of assuming that a child should not attend, failed to respect the human right to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.347300

Shabelnik v Ukraine: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

A suspect’s position will have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him is being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled: ‘The manner in which article 6(1) and (3)(c) is to be applied during the preliminary investigation depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and on the circumstances of the case. The moment from which article 6 applies in ‘criminal’ matters also depends on the circumstances of the case, as the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial prompts the Court to prefer a ‘substantive’, rather than a ‘formal’, conception of the ‘charge’ contemplated by article 6(1).’
Peer Lorenzen, President
[2009] ECHR 302, 16404/03
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1) 6(3)(c)
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Shabelnik v Ukraine ECHR 15-Jan-2008
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.445391

Regina v Resident Judge of Canterbury Crown Court and Resident Judge of Maidstone Crown Court ex parte Blok: Admn 6 Mar 1997

Judicial review was sought of letters from two Crown Court judges appearing to direct local magistrates as to the practice they should follow when facing applications to transfer legal aid orders in criminal matters.
Held: The letters merely gave guidance on the practice actually followed in the Crown Courts.
[1997] EWHC Admin 233
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.137178

Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Guney: HL 10 May 1996

The defendant was given bail supported by sureties for his attendance. The appellant signed for andpound;1m for his attendance. There was a preparatory hearing at a new court building without cells or a dock. The defendant was present. The surety was not. Thinking that they were thereby preserving the recognisance, counsel agreed between themselves that there was no need for the defendant to surrender into the custody of the court. The judge was not aware of that discussion. The defendant then fell to be arraigned having been asked by the judge to stand up in the place in court where he was sitting. There were further hearings but after several of them the defendant absconded by leaving the country and remained away for many years. The Crown sought to estreat the recognisance and the liability of the surety depended upon whether counsel’s agreement meant that the defendant had not surrendered. The prosecution appealed against a decision that he had surrendered to his bail.
Held: Whenever else it might occur surrender is accomplished as a matter of law when the defendant is arraigned. Any practice of a judge directing that despite arraignment the defendant should be deemed not to have surrendered was a direction devoid of legal consequence. A later non attendance at an adjourned hearing did not lead to the forfeiture of a surety.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann
Times 10-May-1996, [1996] UKHL 11, [1996] AC 616, [1996] 2 All ER 705, [1996] 2 WLR 675
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1987 8, Bail Act 1946 3, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 128
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Guney CA 2-Feb-1995
A defendant is deemed to have surrendered to court custody when attending as directed; a surety was not estreated when he failed to attend at a later hearing after an adjournment.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR (dissenting) said that there is nothing in . .
At First Instance – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Guney QBD 1-Feb-1994
An arraignment was valid despite non attendance at court, and the surety’s duties were not terminated. Arraignment in absence if defendant is not a surrender to custody for bail. . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Richards QBD 1988
The defendant had been on bail to appear at the Magistrates’ Court. On the day he arrived in good time. A notice said: ‘All persons due to appear in court please report to the enquiry counter.’ He did so and he obeyed directions which were there . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Guney CA 2-Feb-1995
A defendant is deemed to have surrendered to court custody when attending as directed; a surety was not estreated when he failed to attend at a later hearing after an adjournment.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR (dissenting) said that there is nothing in . .
Cited – Evans, Regina v CACD 16-Nov-2011
The defendant came to court, and his counsel informed the court of this, but then he left. Had he surrendered to his bail? He surrendered and was taken to court. He pleaded guilty to the Bail Act offence and was sentenced, but then was allowed to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.86310

Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council: QBD 30 Apr 1999

The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction.
Rose LJ, Bell J
Times 14-May-1999, Gazette 26-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 385, [2000] QB 719
Bailii
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Cain HL 1985
The sentencing judge had exceeded his powers by making a criminal bankruptcy order. S40 appeared to deny a right of appeal against such an order.
Held: There is a strong presumption that except by specific provision the legislature will not . .

Cited by:
Cited – TB, Regina (on the Application of) v The Combined Court at Stafford Admn 4-Jul-2006
The claimant was the child complainant in an allegation of sexual assault. The defendant requested her medical records, and she now complained that she had been unfairly pressured into releasing them.
Held: The confidentiality of a patient’s . .
Cited – Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court QBD 4-Jul-2007
The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.85384

Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland: CA 15 Jul 1997

The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those proceedings and including a habeas corpus application, were to be regarded as a criminal cause or matter.
Lord Bingham CJ considered that, when determining if proceedings are a criminal cause or matter, three questions were pertinent: (i) What is the purpose of the application [during which the impugned decision was made]? (ii) Is it a step in the process of bringing a defendant to trial? (iii) Can it affect the conduct of the trial?
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ
Times 24-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2109, [1997] 1 WLR 1346
Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 7 9(8) 11(3), Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
Cited – In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ew v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.142506

Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another: SC 24 Jan 2018

The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification existed, but equally there was no restriction on the use of such materials in what was an ex parte procedure.
The statutory scheme of PACE and the CJPA itself permits the relevant magistrate or court to have regard to material which cannot on public interest grounds be disclosed to a person affected by a warrant or order. It involves a purely ex parte process, directed to premises, rather than any particular person, and is designed to be operated speedily and simply, on information provided by a constable satisfying a magistrate that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters stated in section 8(1). There is nothing in the statutory scheme which expressly restricts the information on which the magistrate may act. Parliament made no express provision for the information on which the warrant was sought to take any particular form or to be disclosed, even after the issue of the warrant, to any person affected.
Police had to be candid with the Magistrate, but a requirement that all such material be disclosed to the subject of the investigation would be inhibitive.
Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 1, [2018] Crim LR 672, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 71, [2018] 2 All ER 303, [2018] AC 236, [2018] 2 WLR 357, [2018] 1 Cr App R 26, [2018] WLR(D) 35, UKSC 2016/0130
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 08112017 am Video, SC 08112017pm video
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 111 113(4), Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 59
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Cited – Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting . .
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. . .
Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Cited – Golfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Nov-2017
The Authority had obtained and executed a search warrant against the defendant’s premises, but now sought to restrain disclosure of the materials upon which it had obtained that warrant, asserting Public Interest Immunity.
Held: An application . .
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .
Cited – Conway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co HL 1991
The House heard an application judicially to review a notice served by an inspector of taxes under section 20 of the 1970 Act, requiring T C Coombs and Co to deliver or make available for inspection documents in their possession relevant to the tax . .
Cited – Esbester v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Apr-1993
(Commission) The claimant had been refused employment within the Central Office of Information. He had been accepted subject to clearance, but that failed. He objected that he had been given no opportunity to object to the material oin which his . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Attorney General v Danhai Williams and others PC 12-May-1997
(Jamaica) Customs investigating officers on attended the appellant’s premises in the course of an investigation of fraudulent importation. The officers were met by a hostile crowd, and the claimant did not attend for interview as invited. A search . .
Cited – Home Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
Cited – Kadi v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2010
ECFI Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 – . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Kennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
Cited – Stanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .

Cited by:
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd CA 7-Aug-2018
The Authority had obtained a search warrant on an ex parte application. The defendant sought a rehearing, but the Authority sought to rely upon material for which it now asserted public interest immunity in material already used. At first instance, . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 8-Nov-2018
Whether to appoint special advocate. The Authority wished to pursue an investigation relying upon material for which it asserted Public Interest Immunity. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2018
Challenge to search warrants issued under the 1998 Act. . .
Cited – The Competition and Markets Authority v Concordia International Rx (UK) Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2019
Application to vary search warrant.
Held: Refused. . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.603120

Regina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 7 May 1993

A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for lack of jurisdiction, was not susceptible to Judicial Review. This was a ‘decision affecting conduct of trial’. The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘other than its jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment’ in the Act, deciding that the words relate only to orders directed to and affecting the exercise of its jurisdiction by the Crown Court. There is nothing to suggest that the words are intended to limit in any way the power of the High Court to make orders against any party other than the Crown Court. Judicial review would not lie to a superior court of record in the absence of express provision.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Times 07-May-1993, Times 26-Nov-1993, Gazette 23-Jun-1993, Independent 07-Dec-1993, Independent 07-May-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1524, [1993] 4 All ER 928, (1994) 98 Cr App R 461, [1994] 1 AC 9, (1993) 97 Cr App R 203
Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 20-Jan-1993
MEP’s are susceptible to prosecution. The National courts do have jurisdiction. . .
Dicta approved – In re Smalley HL 1985
Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision) CA 9-Mar-2004
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.87253

Al Akidi v Bulgaria: ECHR 31 Jul 2003

The applicant asserted infringement of his rights by virtue of his detention before trial. He was arrested and detained in 1993, but his case was not concluded until 1997, with appeals running through to 1997.
Held: Suspicion is a sine qua non of detention pending trial, but after a certain period it is unsufficient. Continued detenetion over a long period of time awaiting trial requires special care to ensure the detention is justified.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3 ; Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
35825/97, [2003] ECHR 413
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5.3 6.1
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Labita v Italy ECHR 6-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment; Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.185112

Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee: HL 1921

Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to prosecution, and empowered the Board of Trade to delegate their powers for prosecutions to local authorities. The Newcastle Profiteering Committee had reported the Appellants for excessive charges on the sale of chocolate biscuits, and intended to institute proceedings.
Held: The House considered section 47 of the 1973 Act.
Lord Birkenhead LC said: ‘Now, we have in this case the provision contained in an Act of Parliament that the Board of Trade, or those to whom they delegate this power, shall ‘take proceedings’ against the seller before a Court of summary jurisdiction if in their judgment the circumstances so require, and the sub-section goes on to provide that if in ‘such proceedings’ it is found that the complaint is established certain consequences – namely, alternatively a fine or imprisonment, shall follow. But the proceedings in respect of which it is provided that there shall be either a fine or imprisonment, if there be a conviction, are the proceedings which are taken by the Board, or its representative, in pursuance of the peremptory terms which are used in the sub-section; and I am unable to see how it can be even contended that these proceedings are not proceedings within the meaning of the language used by Lord Esher and not impeached by counsel for the appellants in his argument.
It has long been recognised that the words under consideration are to be widely, and not restrictively, construed. I find myself in agreement with the whole of Lord Esher’s judgment.
Reference was made in the argument and in the judgments below to a later decision, PULBROOK, Ex parte, which indeed, if the matter were in any way doubtful, would, if accepted in this House, throw a great light upon the only question which requires decision. It was there held that an appeal does not lie from an order made by a Judge at Chambers under section 8 of the Law of Libel (amendment) Act, 1888 (51 and 52 Vict. C. 64), allowing a criminal prosecution to be commenced against the proprietor, publisher, editor, or person responsible for the publication of a newspaper, for libel published therein. In such a case the order which is made by a Judge at Chambers is not necessarily followed by any proceedings at all; the person who has so obtained the order of the Judge may, or he may not, initiate a prosecution upon the strength of such order. It was, nevertheless held, and in my judgment rightly held, that there is no appeal from such an order because it is given in a criminal matter. This decision was reached, although the Act itself, by directing that no prosecution shall be commenced without the order of a Judge plainly recognises that the actual commencement of the prosecution is a later and a distinguishable stage in the matter.
. .
I am of the opinion, for these reasons, that this was an order made in a criminal cause or matter, and that no appeal from it can be heard. The appeal therefore fails, and I move your Lordships accordingly.’
Lord Sumner agreed: ‘I think that when the local Profiteering Act committee resolved in the terms in which they did resolve, not only that there should be a refund of one half-penny, but that there should be a direction that proceedings be taken, they had already satisfied all conditions precedent, because it had appeared to them that the circumstances required them to take the proceedings which thereupon they proceeded to take; and the passing of that resolution was in my opinion not the mere satisfaction of a condition but was itself the first step in taking proceedings against the seller, although no doubt as a matter of fact subsequent steps would be taken personally by their clerk prosecuting on their behalf, and satisfying the words of the Act that they should take proceedings, and formally instituting what is called a prosecution before the Justices. It seems to me that the commencement of those proceedings by passing the resolution was itself the commencement of a criminal matter . . ‘
Lord Birkenhead LC, Lord Sumner
(1921) 90 LJ (KB) 1064
Judicature Act 1873 47
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .

Cited by:
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.666305

Ex parte Pulbrook: QBD 11 Mar 1892

A judge in chambers gave permission pursuant to the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 to bring proceedings for criminal libel. The proposed defendant sought to appeal. This raised the question whether the order was made in ‘criminal proceedings’ within the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Held: Referring by analogy to section 47 of the 1873 Act, the Court considered that the permission was granted in a criminal cause or matter within the meaning of that provision.
(1892) 1 QB 86, [1892] UKLawRpKQB 65
Commonlii
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.666306

Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 1 Dec 2017

The claimants alleged that the defendants had been involved in their unlawful rendition in 2004 from Thailand to Libya, in particular now challenging by judicial review the decision not to prosecute certain senior British Officers.
Irwin LJ, Popplewell J
[2017] EWHC 3056 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 808
Bailii, WLRD
Justice and Security Act 2013 6
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Straw and Others QBD 21-Jul-2017
The Defendants apply for a declaration that these are proceedings in which a closed material application may be made pursuant to section 6 of the 2013 Act. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 15-Mar-2018
A claim that the DPP erred in her decision not to prosecute for alleged involvement in the unlawful rendition of the Claimants to Libya. . .
See Also – Belhaj and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 15-Mar-2018
Second judgment on the scope of privilege to which we have both contributed – inadvertent disclosure . .
See Also – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 3-May-2018
Incorrect disclosure of non-redacted material in closed hearing. . .
Appeal from – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.601431

Gafgen v Germany: ECHR 1 Jun 2010

(Grand Chamber) The claimant said that police treatment during his interview had amounted to torture.
Held: The Salduz principles were not restricted to the failure to provide access to a lawyer during interview. There is no clear consensus about the exact scope of application of any exclusionary rule, and factors such as whether the impugned evidence would, in any event, have been found independently of the prohibited method of investigation, may influence the admissibility of the evidence.
‘In order for ill-treatment to fall within the scope of article 3, it must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age, and state of health of the victim. Further factors include the purpose for which the treatment was inflicted together with the intention or motivation behind it, as well as its context, such as an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions.’
Jean-Paul Costa, President
[2010] ECHR 759, 22978/05, (2010) 52 EHRR 1
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Gafgen v Germany ECHR 30-Jun-2008
(Fifth Section) The claimant said that having been arrested by police, their treatment of him amounted to torture.
Held: Iit was not necessary to rule on the Government’s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It held, . .
See Also – Gafgen v Germany ECHR 18-Mar-2009
(Grand Chamber) – Press Release . .
Cited – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate.
Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution.
Held: The admission of the . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Cited – Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.445163

Butt, Regina v: CACD 17 Mar 2005

The defendant appealed his conviction of rape, complaining that the judge had unfairly imposed a time limit on the cross-examination of the complainant.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The management of a trial involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. This court will not interfere with a decision made by the judge when exercising this function unless it is plain that it has resulted in unfairness. This is for the simple reason that the trial judge is in a far better position than this court to decide what fair and sensible trial management requires in any given case. In the present case, we are in no doubt that the trial judge’s decision to impose a time limit on the cross-examination of the complainant was entirely justified. It did not result in any unfairness to the appellant. ‘
[2005] EWCA Crim 805
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.466415

Regina v Coughlan and Young: CACD 1976

Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect of the ‘sub-agreements’ or ‘sub-conspiracies’ to cause explosions in Manchester and Birmingham.
Lawton LJ said: ‘There is no difficulty in law about alleging a separate conspiracy to cause explosions in Manchester and another to cause explosions in Birmingham, even though some, or it may be all of the conspirators, may have been parties to a wider agreement to cause explosions throughout the United Kingdom, including Birmingham and Manchester. The wider agreement or conspiracy would not preclude the existence of sub-agreements or sub-conspiracies to cause explosions in particular places, and as a matter of law these sub-conspiracies or agreements could properly be charged as separate offences.’
There had been publicity following an unsuccessful plea of autrefois convict which tended to disclose an earlier conviction. Lawton LJ said: ‘It is our experience that juries in general understand the responsibility which rests upon them. They know that they have to be sure of guilt on the evidence before returning a verdict of guilty. The fault with juries nowadays lies not in convicting when they should acquit but in acquitting when they should convict. Juries are capable of disregarding that which is not properly before them. They are expected to disregard what one accused says about another in his absence. If they can do that, which is far from easy, they can disregard what has been said in a newspaper.’ and ‘There is no difficulty in law about alleging a separate conspiracy to cause explosions in Manchester and another to cause explosions in Birmingham, even though some, or it may be all of the conspirators, may have been parties to a wider agreement to cause explosions throughout the United Kingdom, including Birmingham and Manchester. The wider agreement or conspiracy would not preclude the existence of sub-agreements or sub-conspiracies to cause explosions in particular places, and as a matter of law these sub-conspiracies or agreements could properly be charged as separate offences. Acquittal or conviction on a charge of one such offence would be no bar to the trial of the same accused on another.’
Lawton LJ
[1976] 63 Cr App R 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
hamza_rCACD2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Regina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.237906

Regina v Andrews: CACD 15 Oct 1998

Potential jurors should not be asked questions to test for bias, save in the most exceptional circumstances and where there was a possibility of a juror having a personal involvement; perhaps having a personal loss from the alleged crime.
Times 15-Oct-1998, Gazette 11-Nov-1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Exercise by the Crown of its Right of Stand-by 1989
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.86051

Regina v Radley: CACD 1973

On a single count indictment alleging conspiracy to defraud, after the Prosecution opening it amended by addition counts to cater for the possibility that more than one conspiracy had existed; This made the case easier for the Jury and no injustice resulted from the amendment at the stage at which it occurred. An indictment may be defective if it fails to include a count that is ‘possible on the depositions.
Widgery LCJ said: ‘We can see no possible reason for saying that to arraign the accused again after the amendment is made can be prejudicial or irregular in any way. By arraignment, we refer of course strictly to the putting of the charge to the accused and asking him to plead to it. It is not suggested that when that has been done he has to be put in charge of the jury a second time or that a jury have to be empanelled again. It is perfectly permissible, if an amendment is made of a substantial character after the trial has begun and after arraignment, for the arraignment to be repeated, and we think that it is a highly desirable practice that this should be done wherever amendments of any real significant are made. It may be that in cases like Harden . . where amendments are very slight and cannot really be regarded as in any way introducing a new element into the trial a second arraignment is not required, but judges in doubt on this point will be well advised to direct a second arraignment.’
Widgery LCJ
(1973) 58 Cr App R 394, [1974] Crim LR 312
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Johal and Ram 1972
Ashworth J said: ‘The argument for the appellants appeared to involve the proposition that an indictment, in order to be defective, must be one which in law did not charge any offence at all and therefore is bad on the face of it. We do not take . .

Cited by:
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 July 2021; Ref: scu.536998