Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Crime - From: 1991 To: 1991

This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v Johnson [1991] 2 QB 249
1991


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v J (rape: marital exemption) [1991] 1 All ER 759
1991
Crwn
Rougier J
Crime
(Crown Ct at Teesside) A husband was charged with having raped his wife, from whom he was living apart at the time. Held: The charge was bad. s 1(1)(a) of the 1976 Act had the effect that the marital exemption embodied in Hale's proposition was preserved, subject to those exceptions established by cases decided before the Act was passed. The word 'unlawful' in the subsection meant 'illicit', ie outside marriage.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 1(1) - Sexual Offences Act 1956 1
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
J T A K v H M Advocate 1991 SCCR 343
1991


Scotland, Crime

1 Citers


 
Somchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America [1991] 1 AC 225; (1991) 92 Cr App R 77; [1990] UKPC 31
1991
PC
Lord Griffiths
Commonwealth, Crime, Jurisdiction, Extradition
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant's extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong Kong was justiciable in Hong Kong although no overt act in pursuance of that conspiracy had yet taken place in Hong Kong. Held: English criminal law is generally local in its effect. The criminal law does not concern itself with crimes committed abroad. Any offence may be tried in this country even if the last act did not take place here, provided the court sees nothing contrary to international comity in its assumption of jurisdiction. Conspiracy being an inchoate offence, no 'last act' was required.
Lord Griffiths said: "Unfortunately in this Century crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale and the criminal law must face this new reality. Their lordships can find nothing in precedent, comity or good sense that should inhibit the common law from regarding as justiciable in England inchoate crimes committed abroad which are intended to result in the commission of criminal offences in England." and
"The English courts have decisively begun to move away from definitional obsessions and technical formulations aimed at finding a single situs of a crime by locating where the gist of the crime occurred or where it was completed. Rather, they now appear to seek by an examination of relevant policies to apply the English criminal law where a substantial measure of the activities constituting a crime take place in England, and restrict its application in such circumstances solely in cases where it can seriously be argued on a reasonable view that these activities should, on the basis of international comity, be dealt with by another country." and "Their Lordships can find nothing in precedent, comity or good sense that should inhibit the common law from regarding as justiciable in England inchoate crimes committed abroad which are intended to result in the commission of criminal offences in England." and
"It is notoriously difficult to apprehend those at the centre of the drug trade: it is only their couriers who are usually caught. If the courts were to regard the penetration of a drug dealing organisation by the agents of a law enforcement agency and a plan to tempt the criminals into a jurisdiction from which they could be extradited as an abuse of process it would indeed be a red letter day for the drug barons."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Sansom (1991) 92 Cr App R 115
1991


Crime
Conspiracy over international borders - comity rule applied to provide jurisdiction.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Berry (No 2) [1991] 2 All ER 789
1991


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Jones, Planter and Pengelly [1991] Crim LR 856
1991


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Teong Sun Chuah [1991] Crim LR 463
1991
CACD
Lord Lane CJ
Crime

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Burgess [1991] 93 Crim App R 41
1991


Crime

1 Citers


 
Regina v Dhingra Unreported, 1991
1991
CC
Wright J
Crime, Health Professions
(Crown Court at Birmingham) A doctor who had fitted a patient, with an IUD was charged with an offence under section 58 of the 1861 Act. Having heard medical evidence from two consultant gynaecologists and legal argument the judge withdrew the case from the jury. The medical expert said "so far as the current thinking of the medical profession is concerned the use of the word "miscarriage" relates to the spontaneous loss of an established pregnancy and not the result of anything done to interfere with the processes of fertilization or implantation." Held: "Both doctors agree that so far as the current thinking of the medical profession is concerned the use of the word "miscarriage" relates to the spontaneous loss of an established pregnancy and not the result of anything done to interfere with the processes of fertilization or implantation." and "Both doctors agree that in the proper use of modern medical terminology the function of both the pill and the coil in such circumstances is contraceptive, and not abortifacient. To put it in layman's terms, the use of pill or coil in such circumstances is to prevent a pregnancy commencing, and not to displace an established pregnancy." The court referred to the case of Price: "The essential question for the jury is . . whether the defendant, at the time he inserted the coil, knew or believed that Miss F was pregnant, and, accordingly, introduced the instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage, or whether, as is the case for the defence, that he knew or believed that she was not pregnant, in the true sense of the word, and that his purpose in inserting the coil was for contraceptive purposes; in other words, to prevent her from becoming pregnant thereafter." As to the meaning of 'miscarriage': "I . . adopt the narrower interpretation of this part of section 58, and hold that the word "miscarriage" in this context relates to the spontaneous expulsion of the products of pregnancy. I further hold, in accordance with the uncontroverted evidence that I have heard, that a pregnancy cannot come into existence until the fertilized ovum has become implanted in the womb . . It follows from this - and I so hold - that the insertion of an intra-uterine contraceptive device before a pregnancy has become established, with the intention of preventing the successful implantation in the uterine wall of any fertilized ovum that may result from a prior act of sexual intercourse, does not amount to an offence under section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861."
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 58
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v C (rape: marital exemption), [1991] 1 All ER 755
1991
Crwn
Simon Brown J
Crime
(Crown Ct at Sheffield) There were nine counts in an indictment against a husband and a co-accused charging various offences of a sexual nature against an estranged wife. One of these was of rape as a principal. Held: The whole concept of a marital exemption in rape was misconceived: 'Were it not for the deeply unsatisfactory consequences of reaching any other conclusion on the point, I would shrink, if sadly, from adopting this radical view of the true position in law. But adopt it I do. Logically, I regard it as the only defensible stance, certainly now as the law has developed and arrived in the late twentieth century. In my judgment, the position in law today is; as already declared in Scotland, that there is no marital exemption to the law of rape. That is the ruling I give. Count seven accordingly remains and will be left to the jury without any specific direction. founded on the concept of marital exemption.'
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Clements v HM Advocate 1991 JC 62; 1991 SLT 388
1991

Lord Justice General Hope
Crime, Scotland
An offence charged was a contravention of the 1971 Act. Observing that the criminal enterprise with which the appellants were concerned was the whole network or chain of supply, right up to the end of the chain where the harmful effects were to be felt, the court. Held: "The underlying mischief at which these provisions are directed is the supply or offer to supply of a controlled drug to another, and to look to the place of the mischief as the place where jurisdiction can be established against all those involved would be consistent with the idea that the courts of the place where the harmful acts occur may exercise jurisdiction over those whose acts elsewhere have those consequences: see Lord Diplock's discussion of this point in R v Treacy [1971] AC 537, 562. This is not to say that the courts in other parts of the United Kingdom might not also have jurisdiction in an appropriate case. But, as Lord Diplock pointed out, the risk of double jeopardy is avoided by the common law doctrines in bar of trial, in England, of autrefois convict and, in Scotland, that the accused has tholed his assize.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(30(b)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Gomez [1991] 1 WLR 1334; [1991] 3 All ER 394; Times, 24 April 1991
1991
CACD
Lane LCJ, Hutchison J, Mantell J
Crime
The defendant was an assistant shop manager. He accepted two cheques which he knew to be stolen from a customer in exchange for goods, by persuading the manager that the cheques were valid. He was accused of theft of the goods. He answered that a sale had been made, and the property transferred to the buyer, and that therefore there had been no appropriation of property belonging to another. Held: The appeal succeeded. At the time of the actus reus, the ownership was transferred, and there was no property belonging to another.
Theft Act 1968 1
1 Citers


 
Regina v Metropolitan Magistrate ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429
1991
CACD
Watkins LJ
Crime
Watkins LJ discussed the offence of blasphemous libel in the context of a dramatic work: "in our opinion a statement will not necessarily be prevented from being a blasphemous libel simply because the statement is put into the mouth of a character, even a disreputable character, in a novel."
1 Citers



 
 Young v McGlennan; 1991 - 1991 SCCR 738
 
Ulhaq v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 614
1991
HCJ

Crime, Scotland

1 Citers


 
Regina v Modupe [1991] CCLR 29
1991
CACD
Lord Lane CJ and Henry and Hidden JJ
Crime, Consumer
The appellant obtained loans enabling him to buy cars by giving false information when entering into hire purchase agreements. The relevant agreement did not contain all the prescribed information and was improperly executed so that by virtue of section 65 it was only enforceable on the order of the court. The appellant had been convicted of evading an existing liability by deception with intent to make permanent default contrary to section 2(1) (b) of the Theft Act 1978. He appealed against conviction, contending that since the agreement was enforceable only on the order of the court, there was no existing liability, as there was no liability until such an order was made. Held. The fact that under section 65(1) the agreement was only enforceable on an order of the court did not mean that there was no existing liability on the part of the debtor "There was an existing liability, albeit only enforceable by an order of the court. It is quite plain from s 65 that the object of that provision is that if the agreement is not properly completed, then one of the methods of the disappointed contractor enforcing his liability is removed from him. He cannot help himself. In other words he cannot retake the vehicle if it is a hire-purchase type of agreement. But the argument that no legal liability exists in the light of those matters is one which is not tenable."
Consumer Credit Act 1974 65 - Theft Act 1968 2(1)(b)
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Campbell (Tony); CACD 1991 - [1991] 93 Cr App R 350

 
 Regina v Bingham; CACD 1991 - [1991] Crim LR 433
 
Regina v Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673; [1992] QB 61; [1991] 3 WLR 653
1991
CACD
Lord Lane CJ
Crime
Lord Lane CJ said: "It seems to us that where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death are parts of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the fact that there is an appreciable interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate the defendant from liability. That is certainly so where the appellant's subsequent actions which caused death, after the initial unlawful blow, a designed to conceal his commission of the original unlawful assault.
It would be possible to express the problem as one of causation. The original unlawful blow to the chin was a causa sine qua non of the later actus reus. It was the opening event in a series which was to culminate in death: the first link in the chain of causation, to use another metaphor. It cannot be said that the actions of the appellant in dragging the victim away with the intention of evading liability broke the chain which linked the initial blow with the death."

 
Regina v Sansom [1991] 2 QB 130; (1991) 92 Cr App R 115
2 Jan 1991
CACD
Taylor LJ
Crime, Jurisdiction
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to conspiracies charged under the Act of 1977. It should now be regarded as the law of England on this point.
Criminal Law Act 1977 1
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 GR Banymandhub v The Queen; PC 6-Mar-1991 - [1991] UKPC 9

 
 Regina v R; CACD 14-Mar-1991 - [1991] 2 All ER 257; [1991] 2 WLR 1065
 
Weir (Charles) v Jessop (No.2) [1991] ScotHC HCJAC - 1
20 Mar 1991
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Ross v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 564; [1991] ScotHC HCJAC - 2
12 Jul 1991
HCJ
Lord Hope, Lord Allanbridge, Lord Weir, Lord Brand
Scotland, Crime
The defendant faced charges of attempted murder, malicious damage and aggravated assault. He had been drinking lager beer from a can. Unknown to him, someone else put temazepam and LSD in the drink. He began to scream and to lunge about him with a knife, injuring passers by. He had to be taken to hospital and given an antidote to be brought under control. He argued at trial that the effect of the these drugs was to deprive him of his self control and his mens rea. The trial judge had felt bound by Cunningham and rejected the argument. Held: The accused committed the acts whilst suffering non-insane automatism. He was not conscious of what he was doing. The exclusion of the medical evidence was incorrect and that the conviction should be quashed.
Lord Hope said: "The discussion in Lord Justice-General Clyde's opinion [in Cunningham] . . is directed principally to the question whether the categories of special defences should be extended to include what he saw as a new one which, although short of insanity, would lead to an acquittal. There is no discussion of the principle that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of any crime. The whole approach seems to be one directed to grounds of public policy. It is said that to allow such a novel type of defence could lead to serious consequences so far as the safety of the public is concerned, and Lord Murray's approach is criticised on the ground that 'To affirm or even extend that decision would lead to laxity and confusion in our criminal law which could do nothing but harm'. In my opinion these strictures are not justified in cases where the defence is based, as it was in Ritchie, on an inability to form mens rea due to some external factor which was outwith the accused's control and which he was not bound to foresee. I do not see why laxity or confusion should result if we were to recognise that, where the point is sufficiently put in issue, an accused should be acquitted if the jury are not satisfied that the Crown has proved mens rea. That would be entirely consistent with the principle that the onus rests throughout on the Crown. The requirements that the external factor must not be self induced, that it must be one which the accused was not bound to foresee, and that it must have resulted in a total alienation of reason amounting to a complete absence of self control, provide adequate safeguards against abuse."
Lord Allanbridge said: "In the present case the appellant alleged that unknown to him his can of lager had temazepam and a quantity of LSD squeezed into it with the result that he was deprived of his self control to such an extent that he was incapable of mens rea. If this in fact was the effect of the drugs and he was in such a mental condition that he was unable to form any intent - be it good or evil - then clearly he could not have the necessary mens rea to be guilty of a criminal offence.
In such a situation I agree that the case of Cunningham, along with the following cases of Clark and Carmichael, should now be overruled in so far as they conflict with the view that an accused will not have the necessary mens rea if his mind is so affected by a non-self-induced and unforeseeable factor that the result is a total loss of control over his actions which have led to the alleged crime charged being committed."
Lord Weir said: "In recognising the existence of a category of defence of the kind which we have been considering, it is important, in my view, to recognise the strict limits within which such a defence can be said to have validity. I agree that the necessary conditions are that at the time in question the accused must have been suffering from a total alienation of reason rendering him incapable of controlling or appreciating what he was doing, that such alienation was caused by an external factor and that this factor was neither self induced nor one which he was bound to foresee. Anything short of this will not suffice and in the absence of evidence from which the necessary conclusion can be drawn it will be for the judge to direct the jury that such a defence is not open for consideration by them."
Lord Brand said: "I agree with the opinion of your Lordship in the chair. I agree, in particular, with your Lordship's statement that 'A verdict of acquittal would be an appropriate verdict if the jury are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's ability to form the intention to commit the crime with which he is charged.'"
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Kassim; HL 19-Jul-1991 - [1992] 1 AC 9; [1991] 3 WLR 254; [1991] 3 All ER 713; Times, 19 July 1991
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke and Others Times, 18 September 1991
30 Jul 1991
QBD
Nolan LJ
Crime
The essentials of the basic section 5 offence require the court to be satisfied as to the accused’s subjective state of mind, namely that he intended that the representation should be, or was aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
Public Order Act 1986 5(1)(b)
1 Citers



 
 Hui Chi-ming v The Queen; PC 5-Aug-1991 - [1992] 1 AC 34; [1991] 3 All ER 897; [1991] 3 WLR 495; Gazette, 02 October 1992; [1991] UKPC 29; [1991] UKPC 29; (1991) 94 Cr App R 236
 
Regina v Patel Unreported, 07 August 1991; 89/4351/SI
7 Aug 1991
CACD

Crime
Conspiracy
1 Citers


 
S and G v United Kingdom 17634/91
2 Sep 1991
ECHR

Human Rights, Crime
The Commission considered the common law offence of outraging public decency alleged to have been committed by an artist and art gallery curator who had exhibited a model with freeze dried human foetuses as earrings. Recognising that freedom of artistic expression fell within the ambit of Article 10, declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded. The offence of outraging public decency: (a) was prescribed by law, and (b) pursued the legitimate aim of protection of morals and (c) was not disproportionate and could be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.
1 Citers


 
Wai Yutsang v The Queen [1991] 3 WLR 1006; [1992] 1 AC 269; [1991] UKPC 32
14 Oct 1991
PC
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Crime
(Hong Kong) The defendant was chief accountant in a bank. He caused to be made false entries to fail to reflect the dishonouring of substantial cheques. He was charged alone on an allegation of conspiracy. His defence was that he merely obeyed the instructions of others to prevent a run on the bank. Held: Once he had acted as he did, any motive was irrelevant. His appeal failed. As to the meaning of conspiracy to defraud, it required that the conspirators have dishonestly agreed to bring about a state of affairs which they realise will or may deceive the victim into so acting, or failing to act, that he will suffer economic loss or his economic interests will be put at risk.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v R; HL 23-Oct-1991 - [1991] 4 All ER 481; [1992] 1 AC 599; [1990] UKHL 9; [1991] UKHL 12; [1991] UKHL 14; (1992) 94 Cr App R 216; (1991) 155 JPN 752; [1992] 1 FLR 217; [1991] 3 WLR 767; (1991) 155 JP 989; [1992] Crim LR 207; [1992] Fam Law 108

 
 Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter; HL 7-Nov-1991 - [1992] 1 AC 699; [1991] 3 WLR 914; [1991] 4 All ER 698 HL(E); [1992] UKHL 1; (1991) 92 Cr App R 68; [1991] UKHL 15; [1991] 94 Cr App R 193
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.