swarb.co.uk - law index

Crime - From: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 293 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

As to the effect of the Human Rights Convention Rose LJ said: "The right to liberty and security is the subject of article 5. Detention after conviction is only one of the cases in which deprivation of liberty is permitted by article 5.5(1). In the present connection, the other relevant paragraph of article 5(1) is (e): the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind. The protection of persons detained on the ground that they are of unsound mind is contained in article 5(4)."
Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dietschmann v Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 2052
5 Oct 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell
Crime
The defendant was convicted of murder. He claimed diminished responsibility arising from a disorder, being either according to one psychiatrist, arising from alcohol dependence syndrome, or according to another, a depressed grief reaction. The substantial issue related to the judge's directions on the alcohol dependence. The defendant did not suggest he had a craving: his evidence was that he had drunk rather less than usual. Accordingly, the evidence was not capable of establishing alcohol dependence syndrome as being an abnormality of mind within the section.
Rose LJ summarised the law: ‘The general rule that drink does not give rise to an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes was authoritatively established in R v Fenton (1975) 61 Cr. App. R. 261 and confirmed in R v Gittens (1984) 79 Cr. App. R. 272 [1984] QB 698. In line with those authorities, R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 45 established that drink is only capable of giving rise to a defence under section 2 if it either causes damage to the brain or produces an irresistible craving so that consumption is involuntary.’”
Homicide Act 1957 2(1) 3
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Moore, Kerr, Haroon Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 01 November 2001
5 Oct 2001
CACD
Rose LJ, Bell J, Stanley Burnton J
Crime, Human Rights, Health
The applicants challenged the procedures under which, having been found unfit to plead by proceedings under the section, they were then found to have committed the acts forming the offences. The defendants were unable to put forward any case in rebuttal. Applications to stay proceedings as an abuse of process had failed. Were such proceedings criminal proceedings. Not all proceedings which might result in a deprivation of liberty were criminal proceedings. Proceedings under sections 4 and 4A also did not constitute criminal proceedings. The complaint that the inability to defend themselves made a trial unfair confused the rights under the convention with the ability to exercise those rights. The latter could not be guaranteed by any convention. What is a fair hearing varies with the situation.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(1) - European Convention on Human Rights - Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
1 Cites


 
Mcbride, Regina v [2001] NICA 44
5 Oct 2001
CANI

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Atherton, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2109
9 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Jason Penman v Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline [2001] ScotHC 107
9 Oct 2001
HCJ
Lord Kirkwood and Lord Philip and Lord Caplan
Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Noye, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2229
10 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majesty's Advocate v R. [2001] ScotHC 118
10 Oct 2001
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]

 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 15 October 2001; Gazette, 01 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 47; [2003] 1 AC 153; 11 BHRC 413; [2002] ACD 6; [2001] 3 WLR 877; [2002] Imm AR 98; [2002] INLR 92; [2002] 1 All ER 122
 
Tilly v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 27 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 821
16 Oct 2001
QBD
Rafferty J
Crime
The applicant had been convicted of aggravated trespass. She had gone onto farm land and destroyed genetically modified crops. She appealed. Held: For the offence of aggravated trespass, it was necessary to show unlawful interference with activities carried out on land by people present on the land. The definition implied the intimidation of others which was not present without them being present.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Edwards [2001] EWCA Crim 2185
19 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Dyke and Ors [2001] EWCA Crim 2184; [2001] EWCA Crim 2184
19 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Taylor (Paul Simon) Times, 15 November 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001
23 Oct 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Davis and Sir Richard Tucker
Crime, Human Rights
The laws against the misuse of cannabis did not infringe the defendant's human rights to freedom of religion. The defendant asserted that his use of cannabis was in accordance with the exercise of his Rastafarian religion. In the light of international convention, it could be seen that the control of the use of marijuana could be a proper and necessary limitation of the rights of the individual.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 9.1 - Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 - United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988

 
Taylor, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2263
23 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Zedi [2001] EWCA Crim 2280
23 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Mcmanus and Another, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 2455
30 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Turnbull [2001] EWCA Crim 2244
30 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Martin v Regina Times, 01 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 2245
30 Oct 2001
CACD
The Lord Chief Justice of England And Wales, And, The Hon. Mr Justice Wright, The Hon. Mr Justice Grigson
Crime
The defendant had shot a burglar who had entered his isolated home at night. He claimed self defence, but the burglar appeared to have been shot as he retreated. A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. The jury could convict only if either they did not believe his evidence that he was acting in self-defence or they thought that he had used an unreasonable amount of force. That assessment must be left to a jury. However, later evidence suggested that the defendant had psychiatric problems, in the nature of paranoia. That evidence was admissible only in exceptional cases on the issue of loss of self control, and in the circumstances, a conviction for manslaughter was substituted.
1 Cites


 
Martin v Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 2245; [2003] QB 1
30 Oct 2001
CACD
Lord Woolf CJ, Wright and Grigson JJ
Crime
It would not be appropriate except in exceptional circumstances "which would make the evidence especially probative" to take into account, when deciding whether excessive force was used in self-defence, that the defendant was suffering from a psychiatric condition.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Nunes [2001] EWCA Crim 2283
31 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Roberts [2001] EWCA Crim 2282
31 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime
Fraudulent evasion of VAT.
Value Added Tax Act 1994
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General Reference No 83 Of 2001 [2001] EWCA Crim 2443
31 Oct 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami Times, 08 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 2226
1 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Goldring
Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Crime
In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing. Held: The procedures were available, and would not infringe the defendant's human rights. There was nothing in the Court of Human rights jurisprudence to say that admission of such new evidence at the Court of Appeal would infringe the defendant's right to a fair trial. The defence has no absolute right to disclosure of relevant evidence and that strictly necessary measures restricting the rights of the defence were permissible, provided they were counterbalanced by procedures followed by judicial authority.
Crown Court (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) (Disclosure) Rules 1997 (SI 1997 No 698)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Stephen Andrew Walker v Procurator Fiscal, Dumfries
2 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Coulsfield
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Alexander Watson v Procurator Fiscal Glasgow
7 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Coulsfield and Lord Caplan and Lord Philip
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Coutts-Jarman [2001] EWCA Crim 2376
7 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Maclachlan (Solicitors) [2001] EWCA Crim 2375
7 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Alexander Watson v Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow
7 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Caplan and Lord Coulsfield and Lord Philip
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Mcdonald v Procurator Fiscal, Dundee [2001] ScotHC 111
8 Nov 2001
HCJ

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC Admin 882
8 Nov 2001
Admn
Pill LJ Poole J
Crime, Human Rights
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention. Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires presumptions of fact or of law to be defined within reasonable limits. As Lord Bingham stated in Brown, there are no hard edged and inflexible statements of principle. A fair balance must be struck. That fair balance permits the existence of a reverse onus in the context of section 139 of the 1988 Act.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 139 - Human Rights Act 1988 3 - European Convention of Human Rights 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Andrew Stevens v Her Majesty's Advocate [2001] ScotHC 119
9 Nov 2001
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson, Ford v Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 2505
9 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Hunt, Judge Mellor
Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Shorthouse, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2580
12 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
William Innes Shaw v Her Majesty's Advocate
13 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Kirkwood and Lord Weir
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Brown [2001] EWHC Admin 931
16 Nov 2001
Admn
Pill LJ, Cresswell J
Crime
The DPP appealed from the acquittal of the respondent on charges of driving with excess alcohol. The driver had challenged readings produced by the intoximeter.
[ Bailii ]
 
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2635
16 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Bryan [2001] EWCA Crim 2550
21 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Oluyomi Ogundipe [2001] EWCA Crim 2576
21 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Muir v Procurator Fiscal, Lanark [2001] ScotHC 112
21 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Marnoch and Lord McCluskey
Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Heather Grant Times, 10 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2644
22 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Richards, And, Mr Justice Pitchford
Crime
The defendant was accused of murder. She had been found to be under a disability under the Act, but wanted to put forward a defence of provocation. Under Antoine, it was clear that matters of mens rea under the Act were not for the jury. The suggestion of provocation was one which was as to the effect of another's behaviour on the defendant's state of mind. The disability under the Act also went to the defendant's state of mind, and the two were not consistent. Having established that she suffered a mental disability, the defence of provocation was no longer available.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4A - Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611; [2002] MHLR 41; [2002] 1 Cr App R 38,; [2002] QB 1030; [2002] 2 WLR 1409; [2002] Crim LR 403
22 Nov 2001
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Richards J, Pitchford J
Crime, Health
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act. Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order containing restrictions on the liberty of the accused person where the accused person has been found to have committed an act which constituted the actus reus of murder where the person was indicted for murder without there being any determination by an independent and impartial tribunal as to whether the appropriate count was one of murder or manslaughter. It was submitted that the provision is incompatible with articles 5.1(e) and 6.1 of the Convention.
Richards J said: "Subject to the concern expressed below, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to have decided to lay down a mandatory requirement of admission to hospital for a person who has been charged with murder, has been found to have done the act charged, but is under a disability so as to be unfit to be tried; and detention in those circumstances is not to be regarded as "arbitrary" for the purposes of Article 5(1)(e). The right to make immediate application to the MHRT and the other protections operating following admission to hospital ensure compliance with Article 5(4)" and
Richards J continued: "The point of concern is whether the procedures give proper effect to the second of the conditions laid down for detention under Article 5(1)(e). To adopt the formulation in R (H) v. London North and East Mental Health Review Tribunal, "the test is whether it can be reliably shown that the [person] suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention". The procedures under the 1964 Act are not directed specifically to that question. The issue under section 4 is whether the defendant is fit to be tried, which involves consideration of whether the defendant has sufficient intellect to instruct his legal team, to plead to the indictment, to challenge jurors, to understand the evidence and to give evidence. Those criteria do not correspond directly to the criteria for a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention, and it may be possible for a person to be found unfit to be tried without his suffering from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. Yet once a person facing a charge of murder has been found to be unfit to be tried, there is no further consideration of his mental condition under the statutory procedures prior to admission to hospital. If the jury find under section 4A(2) that he did the act charged, it is mandatory for the judge to make an admission order under s.5. The judge cannot consider whether such an order is justified on the medical evidence. Thus no-one is required specifically to address, prior to the person's detention, the question whether he suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. This feature of the procedure does raise the question whether detention is "arbitrary" in the sense explained by the European Court of Human Rights in Winterwerp and Johnson.

It seems to us that the question is one of some difficulty. The answer to it may lie, but does not necessarily do so, in Mr Eadie's submission that this is a difficult and complex area where Parliament has carried out the requisite balancing exercise and has concluded that, where it has been found by a jury that a person is unfit to be tried and has done the act charged as murder, the automatic consequence ought to be admission to hospital as prescribed in s.5 (subject to the person's right to make immediate application to the MHRT and to the other protections afforded to a person subject to detention under these provisions); that the court should afford a measure of deference to Parliament in such a field; and that in all the circumstances the procedure is not to be stigmatised as arbitrary for the purposes of Article 5.

In the circumstances of the present case, however, it is unnecessary for us to reach any conclusion on that issue, since we are satisfied on the particular facts that the conditions for detention, albeit not considered in terms under the statutory procedure, were in fact met. All the experts who gave evidence in the s.4A proceedings were of the view that the appellant suffered from mental impairment within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. They did not consider the question of disposal because it was not necessary for them to do so. [The medical history was considered]. We are also told that, though no report is available, the Secretary of State understands from the clinical staff at the hospital that they believe that the appellant's mental impairment would justify her continuing detention in hospital and that there is treatment available which is alleviating her condition. Looking at the evidence as a whole, we take the view that the appellant did suffer from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention and that the conditions for initial detention under Article 5(1)(e) were therefore met. That is a sufficient basis for rejecting this part of the appellant's case. "
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marvin Murphy v The Queen [2002] UKPC 3; (Appeal No 34 of 2001); (Appeal No 34 of 2001)
22 Nov 2001
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Mustill Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Philip Otton
Commonwealth, Crime, Evidence
(The Bahamas) The appellant had been convicted of burglary and robbery. The conviction depended upon identification by one witness who had given several differing descriptions. The trial was long delayed, and the appellant who was not represented was prevented from asking the witness about previous inconsistent descriptions, and nor was he shown earlier statements showing such differences. Held: In the circumstances the failure to disclose the earlier identification was a material irregularity. The police had also failed to disclose a first unsuccessful identification parade. A second had presumably been held because of some difference in description. Again that was a material irregularity. The directions as to the weakness of the identification evidence were also defective. Appeal succeeded.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Marvin Murphy v. The Q' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Corkhill, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2683
26 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Poole Gazette, 01 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2633
27 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Stanley Carnall v Her Majesty's Advocate [2001] ScotHC 113
28 Nov 2001
HCJ
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Justice Clerk
Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Najera [2001] EWCA Crim 2621
29 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (on the Application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 29-Nov-2001 - Times, 05 December 2001; [2001] UKHL 61; [2002] 1 AC 800; [2001] 3 WLR 1598; [2002] 2 Cr App R 1; [2002] 1 FCR 1; [2002] UKHRR 97; [2002] ACD 41; [2002] 1 All ER 1; [2002] 1 FLR 268; 11 BHRC 589; (2002) 63 BMLR 1; [2002] Fam Law 170; [2002] HRLR 10
 
P, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2786
30 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Richards, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2712
30 Nov 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Hodgson [2001] EWCA Crim 2697
4 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Potter Mrs Justice Rafferty
Crime
The appellant challenged convictions for supply and possession of Class A drugs. A person had been discovered leaving his house with a wrap of heroin, and further wraps were found in a remote control in his hand. Held: The judge had fully explored for the jury the weaknesses in the case, and the defendant had failed to disclose the source of his income. Appeal refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hodgson, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2646
4 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Roy Colin David Porter [2001] EWCA Crim 2699
4 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Potter Mrs Justice Rafferty
Crime
The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for several counts of rape. The defendant had wanted his own scientific evidence, but the judge refused to delay the trial to allow it to be obtained. A complaint was also made as to the judge's direction on the treatment of the evidence of the co-accused. The judge's decision in both complaints was at fault, but the prosecution evidence remained compelling. Appeal against conviction refused. On sentence, the offences were grave and the effect upon the victim immeasurable. Nevertheless he was young, limited, vulnerable, and had never before received a custodial sentence. Twelve years reduced to ten.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Giaquinto; CACD 4-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 2696; [2001] EWCA Crim 2645
 
Regina v Michael Roach [2001] EWCA CRIM 2698
4 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Potter, Mrs Justice Rafferty, And, His Honour Judge Zucker Qc
Crime
The defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful wounding, claiming a defence of automatism. Witnesses described his behaviour during the incident in ways which suggested this not to be the case. Medical evidence suggested he was capable of acting subject to automatism. Held: The judge had not left to the jury the defence of non-insane automatism, and had been insufficiently clear as to the burden of proof on the prosecution.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
In Petition By Kirsteen Elizabeth Mcbride
4 Dec 2001
HCJ
Lord Hamilton and Lord Caplan and Lord McEwan
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Roach, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2648; [2001] EWCA Crim 2700; [2001]
4 Dec 2001
CACD
Potter LJ, Rafferty J, Zucker QC HHJ
Crime
Appeal from rejection of defence of automatism to charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Porter, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2647
4 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Mccutcheon v Her Majesty's Advocate [2001] ScotHC 114
5 Dec 2001
HCJ
Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Coulsfield and Lord Penrose and Lord Macfadyen and Lady Cosgrove and Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Kingarth and Lord Wheatley and Lord Clarke
Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Regina v May [2001] EWCA Crim 2788
7 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Wayne David Fleming v Her Majesty's Advocate
7 Dec 2001
HCJ
Lord Caplan and Lord Hamilton and Lord MacLean
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Fleming v Her Majesty's Advocate [2001] ScotHC 120
7 Dec 2001
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Alister Brown and Robert Carruthers Mitchell v Her Majesty's Advocate
7 Dec 2001
HCJ
Lord Caplan and Lord Hamilton and Lord MacLean
Scotland, Crime

[ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Harmer [2002] Crim LR 401
12 Dec 2001
CACD
May LJ, Goldring and Gross JJ
Crime
The defendant claimed duress saying that he had become indebted to his drugs supplier and had been forced to commit the crimes. He said he did not foresee that he might be required to commit crimes for the supplier. Held: The court did not accept this argument: "We cannot accept that where a man voluntarily exposes himself to unlawful violence, duress may run if he does not foresee that under the threat of such violence he may be required to commit crimes. There is no reason in principle why that should be so."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (on the Application of Fuller, Wright, Tarr and Booth) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1039
12 Dec 2001
Admn
Justice Stanley Burnton
Crime, Human Rights, Land
The applicants sought to test the human rights compatibility of the section when applied to gypsies. The travellers sought to stay on land within the district. The local authority used its policy, and agreed to tolerate the encampment for a short time. There was a serious incident with police officers being held temporarily. After refusing to leave, police raided the encampment. Held The section had to be construed tightly since it created a criminal offence. 61(1) requires that the trespassers have not complied with the occupier’s request that they leave as a condition of the making of a direction by the police The question was not whether the section infringed rights, but whether a direction given under the section was an infringement. A landowner requesting trespassers to remove their goods from his land is not infringing the right to possession of goods. The section provided remedies and was proportionate. Their presence on the land was temporary, and the encampment was not their home within the article, but there could be an interference with family life. In this case though the travellers had not been given opportunity to comply with the request for them to leave, and the reaction of the police was disproportionate. The direction was not valid.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 61
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Dias; CACD 13-Dec-2001 - [2002] 2 Cr App R 96; [2001] EWCA Crim 2986; [2001] All ER (D) 198
 
Turner, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2918
13 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v London Concrete Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1077
13 Dec 2001
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper
Road Traffic, Crime
The respondent company was acquitted after its vehicle, exceeding the maximum weight, was driven on a restricted street in contravention of the regulations. No unrestricted street allowed access to the destination. The delivery was on the company's business, but the driver was self employed. The district judge had held that it was sufficient of the lorry was being used ' for the purposes of the Respondent company’s business', but that the company had discharged the burden of showing it was not itself using the vehicle. The prosecutor appealed. Held: The offence in question is one of strict or absolute liability. This is best not seen as a case of vicarious liability, but rather of a special use of the word 'use' in road traffic law. The test was “Is the owner reasonably capable of giving instructions and exercising control over the driver to ensure compliance with Article 3?” In this case the district judge had applied the wrong test, and the appeal was allowed.
Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1995 Art 3 - Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 8(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Horsman; CACD 14-Dec-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 3040
 
Regina v Hughes [2001] EWCA Crim 2808
18 Dec 2001
CACD
Mance LJ, Penry-Davey, Leveson JJ
Crime
Appeal against conviction for murder. Held: The appeal failed: "the evidence we have heard raised no doubt in our minds, and we do not consider that it might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict if it had been given at trial."
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Clive Louden Carass Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2845; [2002] 1 WLR 1214; [2002] 2 Cr App R 4
19 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Crime, Insolvency, Evidence
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section did not transfer the burden from the prosecution. Held: To justify a transfer of the burden of proof, it had to be shown that this was required, and a persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden was not justified. There was no sufficient threat to society which required a higher burden. The words should be read to require the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence.
Insolvency Act 1986 206 (1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Rooney [2001] EWCA Crim 2844
19 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Massey [2001] EWCA Crim 2850
20 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Brown [2001] EWCA Crim 2828
20 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Howell and Another [2001] EWCA Crim 2862
21 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Morina and Another [2001] EWCA Crim 2851
21 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Barlow [2001] EWCA Crim 2936
21 Dec 2001
CACD

Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 21 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1125
21 Dec 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Hallett
Crime, Human Rights
The defendant had been convicted of using words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress, when she defaced the US flag, and stood on it before a US military officer. She said that the defacing of flags was a common form of protest, that she had no intention to cause alarm or distress, and that any such restriction unjustifiably restricted her right to freedom of expression. Held: The conviction could not be supported. It was a proper purpose to prevent behaviour which caused insult and distress, and there is a pressing social need in a multicultural society to prevent the denigration of objects of veneration and symbolic importance for one cultural group. Nevertheless, the second stage of the test looked to whether any infringement was a proportionate response. The availability of alternate ways of expressing her feelings was only one factor, and the judge had taken insufficient note of the need to protect freedom of speech.
Public Order Act 1986 5 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]