Category: Criminal Practice

Regina v Martinez-Tobon: CA 30 Nov 1993

Guidance was given to judges about commenting to juries with regard to silent defendants.
Held: A judge could be right to comment where the defendant remained silent whilst relying on facts within his own knowledge.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 01-Dec-1993, Independent 30-Nov-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87289

Regina v Less: CA 30 Mar 1993

There was disquiet over a jurors’ discussion with the defendant after a trial.
Held: No enquiry was proper.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Young (Stephen) CACD 30-Dec-1994
Jury Consulting Ouija Board – Serious Irregularity
It had been suggested that during their overnight stay in a hotel after retiring to consider their verdict, some of the jurors had consultated an ouija board to consult with the deceased, and to ask him who had been his killer. Having believed that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87178

Regina v Johnson: CACD 22 Mar 1994

An alibi is an assertion that a defendant was positively elsewhere, not a notice simply denying presence. It is not needed if mere absence from the scene of the crime is asserted.

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-1994, Gazette 11-May-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87001

Regina v Arif: CA 17 Jun 1993

Pre-trial discussion of evidence by potential witnesses is to be to be discouraged.

Citations:

Times 17-Jun-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Momodou and Limani CACD 2-Feb-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions and sentence for violent disorder and assault during an uprising at Yarl’s Wood Detention centre. It was said that witnesses had been coached, other defence witnesses had been returned to their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86058

Regina v Kellard, Dwyer, Wright: CACD 5 Aug 1994

Appeal on a multiplicity of issues from convictions recorded in the course of a trial which lasted about a year.
Held: In large fraud trials, the prosecution should consider severance of the indictment to shorten the length of individual trials, but the length of a trial was not an appeal ground unless it had made a fair trial impossible.
At the close of the defendant Kellard’s evidence, counsel on his behalf submitted that one of the jurors should be discharged because of certain hostile remarks and/or grimaces she had made in the course of the defendant’s cross-examination. The application was not, we note, to discharge the whole jury. The judge declined to discharge the juror; it was submitted that he was wrong to do so. The argument was reinforced by reference to the fact that the juror concerned had been elected foreman. The Court of Appeal approved the following remarks of Potter J in refusing to discharge the juror:
‘… it may often be the case that it becomes apparent to a defendant that some of his evidence is not being well received by a particular juror or jurors and I do not consider that what I have heard takes the position anywhere near the point where I need, in the interests of justice, discharge a juror who there is no reason whatever to suppose will not be true to her oath and decide the question of his guilt or innocence according to the overall weight of the evidence once properly directed by me as to the law.’

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1994, Independent 09-Sep-1994, Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Woodward and Others, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2019
The four defendants were to stand trial for murder, the trial being expected to last ten weeks. The jury was selected to allow for this, but when the trial was set to overrun, it had to be adjourned mid-retirement for three weeks and then again to . .
Cited – Usman, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2021
The defendant was giving evidence and that evidence had reached the point where following his evidence in-chief, he was being cross-examined by counsel for a co-defendant prior to being cross-examined again by counsel for the prosecution. There was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86023

Re Arrows Ltd (No 4): CA 8 Apr 1993

A Civil Court cannot stop the Serious Fraud Office using evidence which had been gathered under compulsion during Insolvency interviews under s236. Any element of confidentiality was overriden.

Citations:

Independent 08-Apr-1993, Gazette 09-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(8) 3, Insolvency Act 1986 236

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Re Arrows Ltd (In Liquidation) Chd 1-Jul-1992
Liquidators seeking information from directors were allowed to undertake not to disclose any information gathered to the Serious Fraud Office. Such an undertaking having been given a former company director was not able to refuse to answer questions . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Re Arrows Ltd No 4 HL 1995
The Court of Appeal had allowed an appeal from the judge who had directed that the transcripts of examinations of a director of an insolvent company under section 236 on the Director of the Serious Fraud Office undertaking that the transcripts would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Company

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.85711

Regina v Mahdi: CACD 15 Mar 1993

There had been delay in the prosecution. Eventually, the prosecutor sought another adjournment before Judge Clarkson, who said ‘it is to be recorded that this is the last time that there will be an adjournment for the benefit of the prosecution.’ He wrote: ‘I indicated to parties no further adjournment would be granted to the prosecution and that the case must be ready at the resumed hearing or else.’ It came back to court but the prosecutor was still not ready. Sich J then said: ‘I am afraid that I see no alternative but to implement the clear intention of Judge Clarkson of 27th August. I therefore invite the prosecution to consider their position very carefully, and in the light of that I think the only proper course for them is to offer no evidence on this indictment. If they choose not to do that, then I think the defence will have to apply for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process.’ The matter came back yet again, and when the judge said it should proceed unless the defendant could demonstrate prejudice. The defendant appealed.
Held: The conviction was quashed. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘We have considered the circumstances of this case with some anxiety. We have been referred to the well-known authorities on the issue of abuse of process. In our judgment this case does not come within the scope of those authorities. Nevertheless, we feel that in the very special and exceptional circumstances of this case the submission made by Mr Akinjide ought to be upheld. We consider that had the Assistant Recorder been fully and properly informed of the course which had been taken before by two senior judges he would in all probability have followed the course which each of those learned judges indicated they would have followed had the matter come back before them.
We are not, in saying this, seeking to establish any precedent, nor do we seek to bring this particular case within any general principle in regard to abuse of process. We simply find that in the exceptional circumstances of this case an injustice was inadvertantly done to this appellant by reason of the lack of accurate information placed before the Assistant Recorder.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ and Pill and Sedley JJ

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 793

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bloomfield CACD 25-Jun-1996
It was an abuse of process to proceed with a prosecution in the face of an unequivocal statement by counsel for the Crown to the Court that the prosecution would tender no evidence. There was no change of circumstances which might have justified . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 24-Nov-2010
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to discontinue the prosecution of the claimant. The judge had suggested that the defendant could submit to a restraining order without a finding of guilt. The CPS had concluded that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.441558

Regina v McCann and Others: CACD 1991

The defendants were alleged to be members of the IRA who had been found near to the home of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They were charged with conspiracy to murder. They did not give evidence. During closing speeches in a terrorist trial, the Secretary for Northern Ireland and Lord Denning took part in radio or television broadcasts, which might have been heard by the jury, in which they equated the exercise of the right of silence with guilt.
Held: In these quite extraordinary circumstances, a fair trial of the defendants had been made impossible.
Beldam LJ said: ‘We are left with the definite impression that the impact which the statements in the television interviews may well have had on the fairness of the trial could not be overcome by any direction to the jury, and that the only way in which justice could be done and be obviously seen to be done was by discharging the jury and ordering a retrial.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

(1991) 92 Cr App R 239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.247654

Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Soldier B: CACD 24 Oct 2008

(Court’s Martial Appeal Court) The newspaper appealed against an order under section 94 of the 1955 Act restricting the identification of the defendants. The judge had said there would be a threat to both the safety of the defendants and as to the administration of justice and national security. It was now accepted that the actual order made was wider than necessary and beyond the powers available under the 1955 Act. The prosecution had now offered no evidence.
Held: The court could not revisit the earlier hearings to make public the material placed before them. The court had powers beyond those of the 1955 Act, including under the 1981 Act and at common law. The justifiable policy of the Special Forces in not identifying its members did not of itself justify the court applying the same rule. In this case there was a demonstrated risk to the lives of the defendants, and anonymity was a reasonable and proportionate response.

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Mackay and Mr Justice King

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 2559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981, Army Act 1955 94

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Regina v Reigate Justices ex parte Argus Newspapers and Larcombe 1983
The court considered an application by the defendant, a ‘supergrass’ for his trial to be held in camera.
Held: Such an order was possible but should only be made if it was the only way of protecting the defendant. . .
Cited – Regina v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonnagh QBD 1988
The court considered the existence of a power in the magistrates court to order a hearing to be held in camera and referred to section 11 of the 1981 Act. Watkins LJ said: ‘However, I am bound to say that I am impressed with the argument that the . .
Cited – Trinity Mirror and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Croydon Crown Court CACD 1-Feb-2008
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to 20 counts of making or possessing child pornography. No direction was made for withholding the defendant’s identity in court, but the Crown Court made an order in the interest of the defendant’s . .
Cited – In re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Armed Forces, Media

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.278289

Regina v H; Regina v C: CACD 16 Oct 2003

The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district judge or judge could best protect a defendant if he had also heard the application for a certificate. There were serious difficulties in always appointing independent counsel. The prosecution may not simply aim to achieve success at all costs, buty had independent duties. Where the defence could not be informed, independent counsel might be employed. In an Edwards case the prosecutor should approach the judge, and independent counsel informed as far as known of the defence case.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Penry Davey, David Clarke JJ

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2003, Gazette 13-Nov-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 3006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the . .
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court QBD 21-Jun-2001
It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection . .
Cited – Regina v Smith (Joe) CACD 20-Dec-2000
The defendant was arrested for burglary and a non-intimate sample taken without his consent. The DNA profile matched blood at the scene of the burglary, and this match was the bedrock of the prosecution case. Before the trial, prosecuting counsel . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Appeal – 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 by:

Appeal from – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.187188

Regina v Edwards: CACD 1991

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to 14 years. The evidence included police evidence of his confessions in interview. He challenged the veracity of the interview notes, alleging that the police officers concerned had ‘fitted him up’. After the trial those representing the appellant discovered that one of the senior officers concerned had, two months before the trial, been reprimanded for certifying interview notes in another trial when these, to his knowledge, had been wrongly rewritten. The fact that this officer was facing disciplinary proceedings should have been disclosed to the defence.
Held: The court set out to control the questions that may be asked on behalf of a defendant in a criminal trial of officers who are members of a police force which has obtained a reputation for bad behaviour. The court considered at length the use to which the defendant could have put of evidence of the police officer’s previous misconduct, had he been aware of this: ‘The test is primarily one of relevance, and this is so whether one is considering evidence in chief or questions in cross-examination. To be admissible questions must be relevant to the issue before the court.
Issues are of varying degrees of relevance or importance. A distinction has to be drawn between, on the one hand, the issue in the case upon which the jury will be pronouncing their verdict and, on the other hand, collateral issues of which the credibility of the witnesses may be one. Generally speaking, questions may be put to a witness as to any improper conduct of which he may have been guilty, for the purpose of testing his credit. ‘ and ‘The distinction between the issue in the case and matters collateral to the issue is often difficult to draw, but it is of considerable importance. Where cross-examination is directed at collateral issues such as the credibility of the witness, as a rule the answers of the witness are final and evidence to contradict them will not be permitted: see Lawrence J in Harris v Tippett (1811) 2 Camp 637, 638. The rule is necessary to confine the ambit of a trial within proper limits and to prevent the true issue from becoming submerged in a welter of detail.’
As to the admission of evidence to suggest that the testimony of a police witness appeared to have been disbelieved in a previous trial: ‘The acquittal of a defendant in case A, where the prosecution case depended largely or entirely upon the evidence of a police officer, does not normally render that officer liable to cross-examination as to credit in case B. But where a police officer who has allegedly fabricated an admission in case B, has also given evidence of an admission in case A, where there was an acquittal by virtue of which his evidence is demonstrated to have been disbelieved, it is proper that the jury in case B should be made aware of that fact. However, where the acquittal in case A does not necessarily indicate that the jury disbelieved the officer, such cross-examination should not be allowed. In such a case the verdict of not guilty may mean no more than that the jury entertained some doubt about the prosecution case, not necessarily that they believed any witness was lying.’

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 207, [1991] 93 CAR 48

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris v Tippett 1811
Where the character of a witness is relevant to the issue, cross examination is permitted, ‘As to any improper conduct of which he may have been guilty for the purpose of trying his credit; but, when the questions are irrelevant to the issue on the . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
Cited – Levey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.186053

Regina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan: CACD 1991

The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to show, to a civil standard that a fair trial could not now take place, but if he did so, the magistrates had power to refuse to inquire into the allegation if it would be an abuse of process to do so, and: ‘where the period of delay is long, it can be legitimate for the court to infer prejudice without proof of specific prejudice.’
A long delay in a complaint may be more significant where the case depends on oral testimony.
Whoever asserts the abuse of process must prove it and to do so on the balance of probabilities.

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 78, [1991] 2 All ER 854, (1991) 93 Cr App R 171, [1991] 2 WLR 866

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks QBD 1985
The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law . .
Cited – Regina v Klisiak; Regina v Ramsgate Justices, ex parte Warren 1981
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions and others v Tokai and others PC 12-Jun-1996
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had been charged in 1981 with offences alleged to have been committed shortly before. The proceedings continued until his appeal for one was dismissed in 1988. The wounding charges were proceeded with only in . .
Followed – Regina v JAK CACD 1992
The defendant was accused of rape and other indecent assaults going back some 20 years. He appealed against a refusal of a stay on the grounds of abuse of process given the very long delay before any complaint was made.
Held: The application . .
Cited – Regina v Khan and Others CACD 7-Oct-2011
The appellants challenged their convictions for the fraudulent use of falsely completed applications to vote by post. They said that the prosecutors had failed properly to disclose other postal applications also suspected and collected by the . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.188239

Regina v Smith, Beaney: CACD 18 Mar 1999

The defendants appealed their convictions, saying that the guilty pleas had been obtained by pressure. On the day of the trial, there had been conversations between their representatives, in the course of which inconsistent admissions were made. Counsel were ‘professionally embarassed’ and they and the solicitors withdrew. The judge refused an adjournment. The trial began, but at lunch the clients re-instructed their solicitors and pleaded guilty. Both defendants had difficulty reading.
Held: Applying Turner ‘Here, circumstances combined to deprive these appellants of that freedom of choice.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Butterfield And His Honour Judge Grigson

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 750

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Turner CACD 1970
The court considered an appeal where the defendant had entered a plea of guilty but had felt himself under undue pressure from the judge.
Held: The court urged caution in the practice of counsel seeing the judge in his chambers, though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.157150

Appeal Under S 3(c) of Costs In Criminal Cases (General Amendment) Regulations of 1991 Against a Wasted Costs Order Re: Lakha and Boothby Wasted Costs Order 5/97: CACD 6 Nov 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 3148

Statutes:

Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 3(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.156022

Wasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997): CACD 2 Sep 1999

Witness orders for the production of documents in the speculative hope that they might contain matters of assistance should be discouraged, and particularly so in respect of documents held by social services departments. This should now be well known and expected, and counsel breaking this rule should expect a wasted costs order.

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire County Council QBD 5-May-1995
Disclosure by third parties in criminal proceedings was not affected by other new rule. Simon Brown LJ summarised the tests for materiality for requiring production of dicuments from third parties by magistrates: ‘The central principles . . . are as . .
Cited – In re Ronald A Prior and Co (Solicitors) 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.90314

Regina v Mullen: CACD 4 Feb 1999

British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. It was alleged that he was a member of the IRA. In 1990, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Some years later the circumstances in which he was be deported to England came to light.
Held: The conviction was quashed: ‘Furthermore, although abuse of process, unlike jurisdiction, is a matter calling for the exercise of discretion, it seems to us that Bennett-type abuse, where it would be offensive to justice and propriety to try the defendant at all, is different both from the type of abuse which renders a fair trial impossible and from all other cases where an exercise of judicial discretion is called for. It arises not from the relationship between the prosecution and the defendant, but from the relationship between the prosecution and the Court. It arises from the Court’s need to exercise control over executive involvement in the whole prosecution process, not limited to the trial itself.’
Rose LJ: ‘This court recognises the immense degree of public revulsion which has, quite properly, attached to the activities of those who have assisted and furthered the violent operations of the I.R.A. and other terrorist organisations. In the discretionary exercise, great weight must therefore be attached to the nature of the offence involved in this case. Against that, however, the conduct of the security services and police in procuring the unlawful deportation of the defendant in the manner which has been described represents, in the view of this court, a blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law with regard to the production of a defendant for prosecution in the English courts. The need to discourage such conduct on the part of those who are responsible for criminal prosecutions is a matter of public policy to which, as appears from R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 and R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, very considerable weight must be attached.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1999, [2000] QB 520, [1999] EWCA Crim 278, [1999] 2 CAR 143

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .

Cited by:

Followed – Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc CACD 26-Jul-2002
The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon . .
Cited – Hounsham and Others, Regina v CACD 26-May-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for having staged motor accidents to support false insurance claims. They said that the insurance companies had contributed to the costs of the investigation by the police.
Held: It might have been most . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
Cited – Mote v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2007
The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Maxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88562

Regina v Rose: CACD 17 Feb 1993

A judge must follow the Regina v Dickens guidelines when making a drugs confiscation order. Alliott J said: ‘We agree that if admissible evidence satisfies a judge so that he is sure that any given sum is a benefit, then there is no need for him to proceed by way of section 2(2) at all.’

Judges:

Alliott J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-1993, (1993) 97 Cr App R 253

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dickens CACD 11-Apr-1990
The defendant had been convicted of conspiring to import cannabis, and made subject inter alia to a confiscation order.
Held: ‘ the object of the Act is to ensure, so far as is possible, that the convicted drug trafficker is parted from the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Levin CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, challenging the standard of proof applied by the judge.
Held: The judge was entitled to include in his consideration, the evidence given at the trial as well as that on the confiscation . .
Cited – Silcock and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2004
The defendants had been found guilty of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit notes. They now appealed against sentence and confiscation orders. The notes were high quality and denomination dollar notes, with probable total face values of many millions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88598

Regina v Bowden (BT): CACD 10 Feb 1999

The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong enough. At the trial, the defendant adduced the terms of that advice. The questions which he had declined to answer included enquiries into an apparent sudden increase in wealth, without obvious source, shortly after the robbery, and about his having taken a holiday immediately afterwards in Gran Canaria where he had been photographed in celebratory pose outside the local branch of McDonalds. At his trial he gave detailed explanations both for his spending and for wishing to photograph the McDonalds restaurant. Accordingly the question arose whether an adverse section 34 inference was open to the jury or not.
Held: A defendant who claimed only not to have answered police questions on legal advice, did not waive legal privilege protection until he also asked that no inferences be drawn from his silence. That request operated as a waiver of that privilege, and questions could then also be asked to establish the advice he had been given by his solicitor and its context. ‘The object of these sections was to weaken the protection which criminal defendants had previously enjoyed against the drawing of inferences adverse to them from such failures and refusals in the circumstances specified. Proper effect must of course be given to these provisions. But since they restrict rights recognised at common law as appropriate to protect defendants against the risk of injustice, they should not be construed more widely than the statutory language requires. There is nothing in any of these sections to suggest that Parliament intended in any way to modify the existing law on legal professional privilege.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ, Kennedy, Jackson JJ

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 25-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 331, [1999] 1 WLR 823, [1999] 4 All ER 43, (1999) 163 JP 337, [1999] 2 Cr App R 176

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35 36 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Cited – Regina v Milford CACD 21-Dec-2000
D was charged with three co-defendants with conspiring to import cannabis. He gave a largely no comment interview to the interviewing customs officer, but at trial said that the contacts with his co-defendants were innocent. Since this account had . .
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Cited – Seaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.135855

Regina v Aspinall: CACD 4 Feb 1999

A known schizophrenic even though certified probably fit for interview should nevertheless have present with him in interview at a police station an appropriate adult. Assessment of such an individual is beyond the skills of a custody sergeant.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-1999, Times 04-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 185

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88372

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 discover which may assist the defendant. ‘Non-disclosure is a potent source of injustice and even with the benefit of hindsight, it will often be difficult to say whether or not an undisclosed item of evidence might have shifted the balance or opened up a new line of defence.’
It was wrong to limit what was to be disclosed to merely what was relevant: ‘An incident of a defendant’s right to a fair trial is a right to timely disclosure by the prosecution of all material matters which affect the scientific case relied on by the prosecution, that is, whether such matters strengthen or weaken the prosecution case or assist the defence case. This duty exists whether or not a specific request for disclosure of details of scientific evidence is made by the defence. Moreover, this duty is continuous: it applies not only in the pre-trial period but also throughout the trial’ and ‘We would emphasise that ‘all relevant evidence of help to the accused’ is not limited to evidence which will obviously advance the accused’s case. It is of help to the accused to have the opportunity of considering all the material evidence which the prosecution have gathered, and from which the prosecution have made their own selection of evidence to be led.’
As to the statement in Hennessy: ‘That statement reflects the position in 1974 no less than today. We would emphasise that ‘all relevant evidence of help to the accused’ is not limited to evidence which will obviously advance the accused’s case. It is of help to the accused to have the opportunity of considering all the material evidence which the prosecution have gathered, and from which the prosecution have made their own selection of evidence to be led. We believe that in practice the importance of disclosing unused material has been much more clearly recognised by prosecutors since the publication of the Attorney-General’s guidelines. The current Code of Conduct of the Bar (1991), Annexe H, ‘Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional work, Standards Applicable to Criminal Cases,’ para. 1.2, reflecting the words of Lawton L.J. which we have quoted, provides:
‘Prosecuting counsel should bear in mind at all times whilst he is instructed that he is responsible for the presentation and general conduct of the case and that it is his duty to ensure that all relevant evidence is either presented by the prosecution or made available to the defence.”

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Approved – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that 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 . .

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 – Regina v Keane CACD 15-Mar-1994
Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
Cited – Regina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA 10-Mar-1993
Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
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 – 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
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 – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Cited – Mielll, Regina v CACD 21-Dec-2007
The prosecutor appealed from the acquittal of the defendant on a charge of murder. He had subsequently been said to have admitted to the offence while in prison on other offences.
Held: The confessions did amount to new evidence within the . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Doffman and Another ChD 11-Oct-2010
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn 4-May-2012
The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88257

Regina v Cox; Regina v Thomas: CACD 4 Feb 1999

Where a defendant had been allowed to appeal on some grounds, but refused on others, the appellant could only renew the refused grounds with leave of the Appeal Court, and after giving notice of his intention to the court and to the Crown.

Citations:

Times 04-Feb-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88425

Regina v Toney: CACD 10 Mar 1999

Counsel advising on an appeal against sentence, should make full allowance for the possibility that lodging an appeal may act to extend the time served, and delay the release from prison by disapplying advantageous early release provisions.

Citations:

Gazette 10-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88197

Regina v Wren: CACD 13 Jul 1993

The defendant was accused of indecent assault. He said that the complainant had consented.
Held: It was necessary for the jury to consider whether the appellant might honestly have believed that the complainant was consenting because that was an issue that arose from the facts. The judge has a duty to direct the jury on each issue to be considered by them, and to clear up the slightest doubts about issues before the closing speeches.

Citations:

Times 13-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993, [1993] CLR 952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina v CACD 25-Apr-2006
The defendant youth appealed his conviction and sentence for rape by oral penetration of a six or seven year old boy. He complained that the evidence contained such inconsistences that the case should not have proceeded. Complaint was also made that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88351

Regina v Burley: CACD 16 Dec 1994

A solicitor’s responsibility for the delay in filing a notice of appeal is not a sufficient reason to extend the time to make the appeal. If things were otherwise the solicitor could always excuse his own default pleading that the defendant should not be prejudiced.

Citations:

Gazette 16-Dec-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88398

Regina v Zoppola-Barraza: CACD 6 May 1994

The appellant had been convicted of importing cocaine. He had no previous convictions. However, he gave evidence that he had been smuggling gold and jewels into the UK so as to avoid duty and VAT. The Recorder directed the jury to have regard to the good character of the appellant to the extent that it was relevant to his credibility. She declined to give the propensity limb of the good character direction.
Held: The appeal failed. A good character direction was inappropriate where the defendant had told the jury of his criminal acts. The admitted misconduct was so closely related to the criminality now alleged against him that it would have been an affront to common sense to hold that the appellant was entitled to the propensity limb of the direction.

Citations:

Times 06-May-1994, [1994] Crim LR 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – GAI v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2012
The defendant’s appeal based on the absence of a good character direction had succeeded. The court now gave its reasons.
Held: After reviewing the authorities, the appeal succeeded: ‘the learned judge was wrong to find that the fact that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88366

Regina v Skinner (Martin): CACD 23 Mar 1993

It is appropriate when sentencing to give reasons even if it only brought the judge to consider what effect his sentence might have on the public mind, and the public’s likely reaction. In these circumstances, a three month sentence for wounding with intent by stabbing in a public place was derisory.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88039

Regina v T; Regina v K: CACD 22 Mar 2001

All cases against children should be tried in the Youth Court, and not transferred to the Crown Court save for the most grave offences. In this case, the allegations included one of common assault. The appeal court had no power on this occasion to set aside the transfer, but since the accusation of common assault was only triable summarily, the indictment as a whole was invalid and was quashed.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 11-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 53 (4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88144

Regina v Soames-Waring: CACD 20 Jul 1998

The judge had discharged his duty properly to direct the jury as to the defendant’s case where, the defendant not having given evidence but having been interviewed at length, he referred the jury to the relevant parts of the interview summaries by page numbers.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88062

Regina v Smith; Regina v Taylor; Regina v Nicholson; Regina v Johnson: CACD 25 May 1999

Where a court had wrongly rejected a submission of no case to answer, a subsequent admission of guilt by the defendant under cross-examination, was not sufficient to deny an appeal. Such an appeal is judged as at the time the submission is made. The conviction would still be unsafe because the defendant was entitled to be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Blofield, Fabyan Evans JJ

Citations:

Gazette 09-Jun-1999, Times 31-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1525, [2000] 1 All ER 263, [1999] 2 Cr App R 238

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88048

Regina v Taylor (Gary): CACD 17 Aug 1994

The defendant’s fundamental right to know the identity of his accusers and witnesses giving evidence against him, was to be denied only in exceptional circumstances. It is a matter for the Judge’s discretion.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Sep-1994, Times 17-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88156

Regina v Taylor and Another: CACD 15 Jun 1993

In June 1991 Mrs Shaughnessy was stabbed to death at home. In July 1992 the Taylor sisters were convicted of that murder. An investigating police officer had suppressed an inconsistent statement made by a highly material witness, and there was also complaint about press coverage during the trial.
Held: The reporting was ‘unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and misleading’. Though the judge had given appropriate warnings to the jury, it was impossible to say that the jury had not been influenced. A fair trial was no longer possible, and the appeal succeeded, with no re-trial being possible either.

Citations:

Times 15-Jun-1993, Independent 15-Jun-1993, (1994) 98 Cr App R 361

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88157

Regina v McAndrew-Bingham: CACD 28 Dec 1998

The offence of attempted child-abduction is an offence of assault or threat of injury, and so the evidence in chief of the child complainant could be given by video recording, and any cross examination be done by live television link.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1999, Times 28-Dec-1998

Statutes:

Child Abduction Act 1984 2, Criminal Justice Act 1988 32(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Evidence

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87302

Regina v McCluskey: CACD 4 Jun 1993

The consent of the Court of Appeal was needed to sanction any jury enquiry.

Citations:

Times 04-Jun-1993, (1994) 98 Cr App R 216

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Durante CACD 1972
Logical inconsistency is generally an essential prerequisite for success of an appeal against conviction on the ground of inconsistency of verdicts. . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87304

Regina v Okafor: CACD 10 Nov 1993

The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in it belonged to him, following which his luggage was searched. Packages of cocaine were discovered in his luggage but he was not arrested or informed of what had been found, the officer wishing him to be released in order to see whether he would lead customs officers to anybody else involved in the importation. He agreed to undergo a body search. Whilst this was in progress (and other officers being deployed by way of surveillance) he was asked various questions and gave various answers without being cautioned or advised of his entitlement to have legal advice before being interviewed. Objection was taken at trial to the admission in evidence of the conversation during the body search.
Held: Customs officers are subject to the PACE Code of Practice for Detention etc in the same as are the police, and must issue a formal caution before questioning a suspect. ‘We have come to the conclusion that the learned judge ought to have excluded this conversation. There were clear breaches of the rules and breaches which were of significance in the context of this case. Therefore we conclude, because it seems that this matter has been ventilated by Mr Issard-Davies with a view to future conduct by the Customs and Excise, that where a Customs Officer has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed, he must either avoid asking questions in relation to the offence, or he must follow the provisions of the Code and administer a caution. In the circumstances of the present case it would have been an option for the Customs Officer to talk about anything other than the case whilst conducting the search, and to have allowed the suspect to go into the concourse and then ask him questions only when he was ultimately arrested. In that way the object of trying to catch others who might be waiting to meet the suspect could have been pursued.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Gazette 24-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993, Times 10-Nov-1993, (1994) 99 Cr App Rep 97, [1994] 3 All ER 741

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .
Cited – Regina v Dianne Senior and Samantha Senior CA 4-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed convictions for being involved in the illegal importation of cocaine, saying that questioning at the airport before a caution was administered was unlawful. By the time they were asked about the cases, the customs officers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87490

Regina v Orgles and Another: CACD 9 Jun 1993

Jurors were not to be questioned individually as to on their capacity to continue. Any questions must be put through the foreman, while the whole jury was in open court. It is an irregularity to question individual jurors in the absence of the others about their ability to bring in a true verdict according to the evidence.

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-1993, Gazette 08-Sep-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 108, [1994] 98 Cr App R 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Cited – Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87498

Regina v Kemp: CACD 25 Apr 1994

A judge should do no more than intimate that the jury has right to stop a trial.

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-1994, [1995] 1 Cr App R 151

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v SH CACD 3-Aug-2010
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87051

Regina v Maxwell: CACD 11 May 1994

When directing the jury, the judge should mention all alternative and appropriate lesser offences with explanations. The possibility of a conviction under section 47 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm should be offered to a conviction under section 20 for wounding.
Hobhouse LJ said: ‘We consider that, in a case such as this, where there is a factual situation which requires a jury to consider the extent of the joint enterprise and whether all the ingredients of the offence have been proved against one of the defendants, and the fact that the evidence was capable of showing that different offences may have been committed by him, the jury should have that opportunity to consider the alternatives. This is not a case, such as often occurs, where there is a single main clear count charging an offence, and the alternatives to it are not viable alternatives. This is a case where the alternatives were, on the evidence before the jury, clearly viable as regards the appellant . .
The present case undoubtedly involved disgraceful conduct on the part of this appellant. He had been identified as one of the men in the minicab. It was clear and undisputed on the evidence that he had taken part in a joint attack on the minicab driver in the early hours of the morning and had, on any view, inflicted some injuries upon him. Indeed, on one view, he was the person who had started the actual violence. It was disgraceful conduct, and it would cause outrage if the appellant, having been identified as one of the men involved, were to ‘get clean away’. If the jury were to have a proper opportunity to consider all the alternatives which were open to them in respect of the appellant, they should have had further directions from the Judge upon the alternative verdicts that were open to them. The Judge laid the ground in his directions about what was involved in a joint enterprise, and the different views that might be taken of how far the joint enterprise went. He referred to the facts, which indicated the increased gravity of the later parts of the incident, and the role of Oakley in aggravating the assault, as well as being involved in the robbery. But he did not then go on to direct the jury that there were alternative verdicts which were open to them.
In our judgment, that did amount to a material irregularity in the conduct of this trial, and makes the appellant’s conviction unsafe.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Garland and Curtis JJ

Citations:

Times 11-May-1994, [1994] Crim LR 848

Statutes:

Offences against the Person Act 1861 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 1988
The defendant admitted paying two others to burgle his partner’s home, but said he had not anticipated violence, and appealed against his conviction for robbery, saying the judge should have left the alternative verdict to the jury. The jury, during . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87298

Regina v K (DT): CACD 25 Nov 1992

The Judge must himself examine documents for which immunity is claimed before making a decision on a public interest immunity claim. It is the court’s job, and nobody else’s to make such decisions, and to find the balance between the public interest and the right to a fair trial in any particular case.

Judges:

Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ, Potts J, Judge J

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87027

Regina v Goodway: CACD 11 Aug 1993

The judge is to give a ‘Lucas’ direction, if the fact of a defendant’s lie is to be relied upon by the prosecution to challenge the veracity of other evidence given by the defendant.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Independent 27-Aug-1993, Times 11-Aug-1993, [1993] 98 Cr App R 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Philip Joshua Rahming v The Queen PC 20-May-2002
(Bahamas) The case was an appeal against a conviction for murder on the basis of the incorrect direction from the judge as to manslaughter and murder, and the failure to give a lies direction.
Held: The failure to bring the defendant before a . .
Cited – Regina v Burge and Pegg CACD 1996
The court considered the circumstances under which the defendant had lied, and Lucas direction was to be given: ‘As there seems to be at the moment a tendency in one appeal after another to assert that there has been no direction, or an inadequate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86710

Regina v Gough: CACD 2 Jun 1992

A juror had lived next door to a party to the burglary alleged against the defendant. The defendant alleged bias. The juror said she had been unaware of the connection.
Held: The question of whether there had been bias in a jury trial is whether there had been a real danger’ of bias, rather than the ‘Topping’ test. ‘Mr Hytner submits, applying that test, that the fair-minded observer would suspect in the present case that a fair trial was not possible. In this case Mrs Smith in her affidavit evidence has stated that she was unaware of the relevant facts connecting her to the appellant until after the jury had delivered its verdict. This evidence was unchallenged. Accordingly this can be distinguished from the various authorities which have been cited to us in that in these latter cases the relevant `connecting’ facts giving rise to the alleged bias have already been known to the particular member of the tribunal, against whom bias has been raised, throughout the trial in question. This did not apply in the present case. If the fact that Mrs Smith was not aware of the relevant facts connecting her to the appellant had been known to the fair-minded observer, then surely the observer would, in those circumstances, have regarded the trial as having been a fair one. Should we impute knowledge of Mrs Smith’s particular state of mind to the fair-minded observer? Mr Hytner submits that such an observer would be bound to conclude that Mrs Smith must have realised who the case concerned when she heard the address referred to in the statement and also when she saw David Gough’s photograph. Her claim of ignorance would be unacceptable to a fair-minded observer. We think there is force in this contention. Accordingly we do not seek to distinguish the instant case by imputing to the fair-minded observer actual knowledge of Mrs Smith’s unawareness of the relevant facts until after the verdict had been delivered.’

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jul-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86718

Regina v Farr: CACD 10 Dec 1998

Brevity in court is nearly always a virtue. A judge was not to be criticised for not rehearsing all the evidence or all the arguments. Fundamental are correct directions on law, and accurate review of the main facts and the general impression of fairness.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 3476

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86657

Regina v Farrow (Anthony Robin): CACD 20 Oct 1998

The idea of ‘lurking doubt’, as an element of what is proof beyond reasonable doubt, is not helpful to the Court of Appeal, and applicants should stick more closely to the statutory formula of whether a conviction is ‘unsafe.’

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86658