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.  














Criminal Practice - From: 1999 To: 1999

This page lists 118 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v Docherty [1999] 1 Cr App R 274
1999
CACD
Roch LJ
Criminal Practice
The defendant was accused of a sexual assault. A witness referred to his having been in prison. The trial judge refused to discharge the jury, stating that the remark could well have been taken to mean that that the defendant was a dishonest person whose word could not be believed, rather than that he had been convicted of a sexual offence, which was not the inevitable inference to be drawn from the remark. Held: The judge had applied the wrong test.
Roch LJ said: "In weighing up the danger of bias on the part of this jury arising from these answers, the judge should, in our judgment, have approached the issue on the basis of the more prejudicial meaning that could reasonably be placed on these answers rather than some lesser prejudicial interpretation."
1 Citers



 
 Kok v The Netherlands; ECHR 1999 - 43149/98; [2000] ECHR 706
 
Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498; [2000] 1 Cr.App.R 141
1999

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ
Criminal Practice
The applicant was convicted of murder and her application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed. She later asked that her case be referred to the court of appeal on the ground of diminished responsibility, a ground not put forward earlier but now supported by a psychiatric report. In due course her case was transferred to the CCRC. Under section 9 it was not permitted to refer a case to the court of appeal unless it considered there was a "real possibility" that the conviction would not be upheld. The CCRC declined to refer on the ground that there was no likelihood of the court of appeal receiving the new evidence. The applicant sought judicial review. Held: The CCRC had rightly sought to anticipate whether there was a real possibility of the court of appeal receiving the new evidence, that there were no grounds for impugning its decision and that the application would therefore be dismissed. Lord Bingham referred to previous cases in which fresh evidence from the applicant himself had been considered.
Lord Bingham CJ said: "Thus the Commission's power to refer under section 9 is exercisable only if it considers that if the reference were made there would be a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld by the Court of Appeal. The exercise of the power to refer accordingly depends on the judgment of the Commission, and it cannot be too strongly emphasised that this is a judgment entrusted to the Commission and to no one else. Save in exceptional circumstances, the judgment must be made by the Commission, in a conviction case, on the ground of an argument or evidence which has not been before the court before, whether at trial, on application for leave to appeal or on appeal. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the Commission cannot therefore invite the court to review issues or evidence upon which there has already been a ruling. Resort to the Commission must ordinarily follow and not precede resort to the Court of Appeal." and "The "real possibility" test prescribed in section 13(1)(a) of the 1995 Act as the threshold which the Commission must judge to be crossed before a conviction may be referred to the Court of Appeal is imprecise but plainly denotes a contingency which, in the Commission's judgment, is more than an outside chance or a bare possibility but which may be less than a probability or a likelihood or a racing certainty. The Commission must judge that there is at least a reasonable prospect of a conviction, if referred, not being upheld. The threshold test is carefully chosen: if the Commission were almost automatically to refer all but the most obviously threadbare cases, its function would be mechanical rather than judgmental and the Court of Appeal would be burdened with a mass of hopeless appeals; if, on the other hand, the Commission were not to refer any case unless it judged the applicant's prospect of success on appeal to be assured, the cases of some deserving applicants would not be referred to the Court and the beneficial object which the Commission was established to achieve would be to that extent defeated. The Commission is entrusted with the power and the duty to judge which cases cross the threshold and which do not."
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9
1 Citers


 
Regina v Thomas Shanks [1999] EWHC Admin 21
13 Jan 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Central Criminal Court ex parte Orleander Johnson [1999] EWHC Admin 36
18 Jan 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Liverpool City Magistrates Court ex parte Quantrell Times, 02 February 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 41; [1999] Crim LR 734; (1999) 163 JP 420; [1999] 2 Cr App R 24
19 Jan 1999
Admn
Buxton LJ, Collins J
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The defendant appealed against the refusal of the Justices to deal with his formal committal to the Crown court in his absence when he was unwell. The magistrates had distinguished between sections 6(1) and 6(2) as to whether the accused was required to be present. Held: The distinction was false: "when the Act deals in section 4 with the tendering of the evidence before the Justices it is doing more than simply using that expression to refer to a discrete and separate part of the committal proceedings. The overall structure of the Act is using that expression, in my judgement, to refer to committal proceedings as a whole. Even if that is not right it would be wholly artificial to think that Parliament would have consciously made any provision in section 6(2) preventing action in the absence of the accused by simply by omitting any such provision in section 6(2). Particularly in a section 6(2) case the tendering of the evidence, and the consideration of whether the accused should be committed, is part and parcel of a single operation."
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 4(4) 6(2)
[ Bailii ]
 
Ibiloye, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service (Horseferry Road Justices) [1999] EWHC Admin 42
20 Jan 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Preston Crown Court ex parte Barraclough and Leary [1999] EWHC Admin 46
21 Jan 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bennett Times, 25 January 1999
25 Jan 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
When a court considered whether to extend the custody time limits a court must not make an allowance in favour of the prosecution for difficulties caused by the victim's illness. Subsebtions 22(3)(a) and 22(3)(b) had both to be fulfilled.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)
1 Citers


 
R v Booth; R v Molland; R v Wood Gazette, 27 January 1999
27 Jan 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
Where the Court of Appeal declared a trial on indictment to have been a nullity, and ordered at the same time that there should be no re-trial, that original conviction had been annulled and set aside, not quashed. Further prosecutions would be resisted.

 
Regina v Stoke on Trent Magistrates' Court ex parte Harry Wilson [1999] EWHC Admin 88; [1999] EWHC Admin 139
1 Feb 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
The defendant sought renewed leave to apply for judicial review. He complained of the reading of statements at his committal where he had requested that the witness attend to give evidence. Held: The defendant had been given full opportunity to attend a previous hearing which had heard the full allegations, and even if leave were granted the application would be highly unlikely to succeed.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Mullen (Nicholas Robert Neil); CACD 4-Feb-1999 - Times, 15 February 1999; [2000] QB 520; [1999] EWCA Crim 278; [1999] 2 CAR 143
 
Regina v Cox; Regina v Thomas Times, 04 February 1999
4 Feb 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
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.

 
Regina v Aspinall Gazette, 17 February 1999; Times, 04 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 185
4 Feb 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice, Crime
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.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Wiggan; CACD 4-Feb-1999 - Times, 22 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 274
 
Regina v Stratford Justices ex parte Colin Imbert [1999] EWHC Admin 118
8 Feb 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Belmarsh Magistrates' Court ex parte Fiona Watts; Admn 8-Feb-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 112; [1999] 2 CAR 188

 
 Regina v Bowden (BT); CACD 10-Feb-1999 - Gazette, 10 March 1999; Times, 25 February 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 331; [1999] 1 WLR 823; [1999] 4 All ER 43; (1999) 163 JP 337; [1999] 2 Cr App R 176
 
Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex parte Caroline Asapokhai ex parte Patricia Mason and ex parte Adesoji Ibiloye [1999] EWHC Admin 147
16 Feb 1999
Admn

Magistrates, Evidence, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Jones (Douglas); CACD 17-Feb-1999 - Times, 17 February 1999

 
 Preston Borough Council v McGrath; ChD 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 18 February 1999; Gazette, 24 February 1999

 
 Cable et Al v United Kingdom; ECHR 18-Feb-1999 - Times, 11 March 1999; (2000) 30 EHRR 1032; 24436/94;24582/94;24583/94;; [1999] ECHR 8
 
Regina v Weekes Gazette, 21 April 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 453
18 Feb 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice, Crime
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as defined by the M’Naghton rules. He had been advised that he might have a defence to the murder charge as such, but had instructed his defence team not to advance it. Held: It is for the defence to establish, if pleaded, a defence of diminished responsibility. "There have been a number of cases in which this court has been faced by the difficulties which arise when a defendant chooses not to call evidence at trial and then wishes to call that evidence on appeal. In general applications to that effect are rejected on the basis that a defendant must put forward his whole case at trial and that it is not in the interests of justice to permit him to put forward his case with different evidence before different tribunals. If in a particular case that results in a conviction which he could have avoided by leading the appropriate evidence at the appropriate time then that is the price he must pay for having chosen not to lead that evidence at the appropriate time. " The Court has the power to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for one of murder, where the defendant's own mental condition had led him to gainsay counsel's advice, and to refuse to allow a plea of diminished responsibility to be put forward.
Homicide Act 1957 2 - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v McFarlane Times, 24 March 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 496
23 Feb 1999
CACD

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
A solicitor may properly delay taking instructions from his criminal client until he has seen the details of the prosecution case, but must take care not to become embroiled in attempt to procrastinate the choice of defence, and must not mislead counsel.
[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Harris (Stephen David) Times, 24 February 1999
24 Feb 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
Cash seized under drug trafficking laws but not ordered for forfeiture could not be ordered for release to fund the defence of the associated criminal charges. Magistrates courts are creatures of statute. Powers could not be implied where none stated.


 
 In Re Andrews; CA 25-Feb-1999 - Times, 19 March 1999; Gazette, 08 April 1999; [1999] 1 WLR 1236; QBCOF 98/0522/4; [1999] EWCA Civ 864; [1999] 2 Costs LR 133; [2000] CP Rep 30

 
 Regina v Stratford Justices, ex parte Imbert; QBD 25-Feb-1999 - Times, 25 February 1999
 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Council of London Borough of Merton [1999] EWHC Admin 179
1 Mar 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Application for judicial review of CPS decision not to prosecute.
[ Bailii ]
 
Indravani Ramjattan v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) Times, 01 April 1999; [1999] UKPC 8
4 Mar 1999
PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The judicial committee could hear an appeal despite earlier rejection of leave to appeal, provided the new grounds were sufficiently distinctive from the first application and merited leave.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Regina v Crown Court At Snaresbrook ex parte Impact Management Limited [1999] EWHC Admin 195
4 Mar 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Plymouth Crown Court ex parte Weston [1999] EWHC Admin 207
5 Mar 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Application for judicial review - refusal to extend custody time limit.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hm Attorney General v Gleaves [1999] EWHC Admin 216
9 Mar 1999
Admn

Litigation Practice, Criminal Practice
The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists. Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 24(7) - Supreme Court Act 1981 42
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Toney Gazette, 10 March 1999
10 Mar 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
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.
Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A

 
Bussey v Director of Public Prosecutions Gazette, 17 March 1999; [1998] Crim LR
17 Mar 1999
CA

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice
Where there remained a difference between the defence and the prosecution as to the facts on which a sentence was to be based a crown court hearing an appeal against sentence was able to sentence on a basis of different facts then found by the magistrates.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Richard Moran, Martin O'Brien and Kevin Oates [1999] EWHC Admin 234
17 Mar 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
The complainants objected to the court allowing the prosecution to withdraw a case on committal on the basis that the prosecution would now inevitably prefer a voluntary bill of indictment giving them less protection.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Smith, Beaney [1999] EWCA Crim 750
18 Mar 1999
CACD
Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Butterfield And His Honour Judge Grigson
Criminal Practice
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."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Toney Times, 18 March 1999
18 Mar 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
Counsel advising on an appeal against sentence should make full allowance for the possibility that an appeal may act to extend the time served and delay the release from prison by disapplying greater early release provisions.
Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A


 
 Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee; Admn 18-Mar-1999 - [1999] 1 WLR 1950; [1999] EWHC Admin 242; [1999] Cr App R 304; [1999] 2 All ER 737
 
Regina v Lewes Crown Court ex parte Trevor Unwin [1999] EWHC Admin 249
22 Mar 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Medway; CACD 25-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Crim 839; [2000] Crim LR 415

 
 Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn); CACD 26-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Crim 862

 
 Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Duckenfield etc; Admn 31-Mar-1999 - Times, 21 April 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 286; [2000] 1 WLR 55
 
Re N [1999] EWHC Admin 287
31 Mar 1999
Admn
Latham J
Criminal Practice
Application re confiscation order.
Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Kamar Times, 14 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 930
31 Mar 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
Where counsel had genuinely omitted to request a good character direction from the judge, and the defendant was entitled to one and did not receive it, the defendant should be acquitted on appeal. It will rarely be possible for a court of appeal to say with safety that the direction would not have made a difference.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
T and V v The United Kingdom Gazette, 08 April 1999; (1999) 30 EHRR 12
8 Apr 1999
ECHR

Criminal Practice, Children, Criminal Sentencing
Public trial in an adult court of juvenile charged with murder and imposition of a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure with a tariff of fifteen years fixed by a member of the executive. The trial of two ten year olds in a public forum, under intense public scrutiny, made the trial unfair: "it is essential that a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps are taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings". A punitive measure should be set by the courts, and not by a political process, and a long sentence for a child must allow for later developments: "the fixing of a minimum term was part of the proceedings and amounted to a sentencing exercise; that article 6(1) was therefore applicable; that that article guaranteed a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal independent of the executive; and that the Secretary of State was clearly not independent of the executive."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Warwick Crown Court ex parte Ball [1999] EWHC Admin 339
21 Apr 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney-General's Reference (No 95 of 1998) Regina v Highfield Times, 21 April 1999
21 Apr 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal, when considering whether a sentence had been too lenient, could only act on the same basis as had been used by the judge at first instance. It was improper to ask the court to second guess the first instance findings.

 
Regina v Burrows [1999] EWCA Crim 1113; [2000] Crim LR 48
23 Apr 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
One defendant had been found when searched to have a plastic egg-shaped capsule with crack cocaine inside. He now appealed the direction given to the jury as to the evidence against him given by a co-defendant. Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the standard Joint Studies Board direction on the evidence of co-accused should not be given where the defendants ran a cut throat defence: "Any warning would have had to apply to both defendants, and would have meant directing the jury to treat each defendant's evidence with caution, just because it inculpated the other. That might have led to a complaint that the jury had not been allowed to approach the case with open minds. It was impossible in this case to give the normal warning."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex P Lee Times, 26 April 1999
26 Apr 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
A prosecutor should consider disclosure of matters proper for disclosure before committal, though not beyond old obligations. This might include convictions of prosecution witnesses, matters suggesting abuse of process, or against committal.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

 
Regina v Snaresbroook Crown Court, Ex P Input Management Ltd Times, 29 April 1999
29 Apr 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
A court acting as an appeal court from the magistrates had a duty to give reasons when announcing its verdict in order to allow the applicant properly judge the criminality found and to assess the chances of an appeal.

 
Regina v Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council Times, 14 May 1999; Gazette, 26 May 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 385; [2000] QB 719
30 Apr 1999
QBD
Rose LJ, Bell J
Criminal Practice
The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Ryan; CACD 30-Apr-1999 - Times, 30 April 1999
 
Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Peter George Trevor Brine [1999] EWHC Admin 402
5 May 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Peter George Trevor Brine [1999] EWHC Admin 401
5 May 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Nottingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Paul Davidson [1999] EWHC Admin 426
12 May 1999
Admn

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co; Admn 12-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 424
 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Beaney and King [1999] EWHC Admin 432
14 May 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Failure of Prosecution to disclose material.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Scarfe [1999] EWHC Admin 433
14 May 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Smith, WD Times, 20 May 1999; Gazette, 09 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 1430; [1999] EWCA Crim 1452
18 May 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has the discretion to adjourn an appeal, once it becomes clear that the point at issue was a point of law, which was itself the subject of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan Times, 31 May 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 454
18 May 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the extension.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(a) 22(3)(b)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson; Admn 18-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 452; [2000] 1 Cr App R 141
 
Regina v Dixon (Leon) Times, 19 May 1999
19 May 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal has discretion of its own motion to grant leave to appeal out of time against conviction even though this has been previously deemed refused because his failure to issue notice of appeal within the 14 days allowed.

 
Re N [1999] EWCA Civ 1452; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 257
20 May 1999
CA

Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence
The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder. Held: "In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. " Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Jones (Stephen); CACD 20-May-1999 - Times, 20 May 1999
 
Ex Parte News Group Newspapers Ltd Times, 21 May 1999
21 May 1999
CACD

Media, Criminal Practice
Counsel for the prosecution had a duty to consider and advise the court in respect of applications regarding non-reporting orders, in particular as to whether excess adverse publicity might operate to make a trial unfair and a conviction unsafe.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)


 
 Regina v Hereford Crown Court ex parte Gregory; Admn 24-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 486
 
Regina v Smith (Patrick Joseph); Regina v Taylor (James); Regina v Nicholson (John); Regina v Johnson (Henry) Gazette, 09 June 1999; Times, 31 May 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 1525; [2000] 1 All ER 263; [1999] 2 Cr App R 238
25 May 1999
CACD
Mantell LJ, Blofield, Fabyan Evans JJ
Criminal Practice
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.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Charles, Steve Carter and Leroy Carter v The State Times, 27 May 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 384; [1999] UKPC 24; (Appeal No 33 of 1998)
26 May 1999
PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) A third trial for murder, with a capital sentence to follow, after a long delay, and when one verdict had been set aside, and a second jury undecided, became an abuse of process. This is usually a judge's discretion and should be set aside only rarely.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Regina v Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Mills; QBD 31-May-1999 - Times, 31 May 1999
 
Regina v Sharif Times, 08 June 1999
8 Jun 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
A judge's duty to assist a duty was a continuing one, and was not curtailed by their retirement. After such retirement, he was not limited in his duty or capacity to responding to requests for assistance. This may mean that he would take the initiative to assist.

 
Regina v Bow Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Christopher Finch [1999] EWHC Admin 527
9 Jun 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v In the Matter of an Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Hayrettin Bora [1998] EWCA Crim 3526; [1999] EWHC Admin 545
14 Jun 1999
Admn
Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Latham His Honour Judge Myerson
Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Dixon (Leon) Gazette, 16 June 1999
16 Jun 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal has discretion of its own motion to grant leave to appeal out of time against conviction even though this has been previously deemed refused because his failure to issue notice of appeal within the 14 days allowed.

 
Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove Times, 17 June 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 499; [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136
17 Jun 1999
QBD
Lord Bingham CJ
Criminal Practice, Costs
The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : "While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine".
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Whitehead; Admn 17-Jun-1999 - Gazette, 30 June 1999; Times, 05 July 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 557
 
Regina v Barnet Youth Court ex parte Ayub Barkan [1999] EWHC Admin 555
17 Jun 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Challenge to magistrates' decision to re-open Newton hearing.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v South Ribble Justices ex parte Bolton [1999] EWHC Admin 570
18 Jun 1999
Admn
Roch LJ, Collins J
Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 17A
[ Bailii ]
 
Fryer, and 'G' and 'Y' v Director of Public Prosecution [1999] EWHC Admin 580
22 Jun 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Fricker; CACD 24-Jun-1999 - Times, 13 July 1999; Gazette, 28 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 1773
 
Regina v Salisbury Magistrates Court ex parte Douglas Gray [1999] EWHC Admin 609
28 Jun 1999
Admn

Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Request for judicial review of decision of magistrates to commit him to crown court for sentence.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 38
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Luton Justices ex parte Judah Abecasis [1999] EWHC Admin 613
29 Jun 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1) - Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v RAF General Court-Martial and Another, ex parte Wright Times, 01 July 1999
1 Jul 1999
QBD

Natural Justice, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice
It is not an abuse of process for the same officer to make recommendations to higher officers on whether charges should be referred to higher authority or dismissed, and also eventually to make the actual decision on whether a prosecution should proceed. The dual role of such officers did not offend against natural justice.

 
Regina v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court ex parte Polat Tulgar (Formerly Known As Mason) [1999] EWHC Admin 645
7 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v West London Magistrates' Court ex parte Waite [1999] EWHC Admin 650
7 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
On the first day of the trial, the complainant was allowed to lead on matters prior to the date of the first allegation. At the adjourned hearing, with a different court clerk, the defendant was not allowed to cross examine the complainant on the same matters. The justices failed to state a case, and so the application was by way of judicial review. Held: The magistrates should have allowed cross examination. The conviction was quashed.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Teeside Justices ex parte Crown Prosecution Service [1999] EWHC Admin 657
8 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Miller Times, 09 July 1999
9 Jul 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
In cases of allegations of sexual abuse prosecuted after many years, the effect of the delay in prejudicing the defendant was something which varied very much from case to case, and although the trial judge should consider a direction very carefully, its precise form remained a matter within his discretion.

 
Regina v Bradford Crown Court ex parte Zaman [1999] EWHC Admin 658
9 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
Judicial review of decision extending custody time limits.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Milliner; CACD 14-Jul-1999 - Gazette, 14 July 1999
 
Regina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Dickinson [1999] EWHC Admin 692
15 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Bradford Crown Court ex parte Crossling Times, 21 September 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 704
19 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice
When a judge makes a fundamental mistake as to the application of the rules for extending custody time limits, the correct approach is to make a renewed application to him, or, in his absence, to the senior judge on the circuit. It was not correct to seek judicial review of the order made. Such an application was not the same application, and another judge could, if necessary, make the order required.
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(3)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v South Western Magistrates' Court ex parte Claire Kennedy [1999] EWHC Admin 718
20 Jul 1999
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Salisbury Magistrate's Court, ex parte Gray Times, 21 July 1999
21 Jul 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
A probation officer, acting in the preparation of a pre-sentence report, was acting as part of the investigating process, and where he came upon information contradicting a psychiatric report to be given to the court, he was free to refer to that information in his own report. He was not limited to items listed in the National Standards for such reports, and a case was properly remitted to the Crown Court for sentence on the basis of his report.

 
Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 737
26 Jul 1999
Admn
Newman J
Criminal Practice
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal was dismissed: "If the failure to adduce that evidence on the part of the prosecution is simply an oversight and by that I emphasise an oversight in that the prosecution has not adduced evidence of that which they are in a position to call that day, either by producing the document or calling the witnesses, in my judgment particular considerations do apply. It would not, in my judgment, be consonant with the proper and due administration of justice in this particular field of criminal prosecution for there to be acquittals simply by reason of oversight in the sense that I have described. Justice will not be done if defendants are acquitted purely because of an oversight which was capable of being corrected there and then. The argument takes the canons of procedure to unjustified limits. It must always be a matter for the magistrates to consider anxiously. In any particular case, they will have to consider whether or not to exercise their discretion so as to permit the prosecution to fill the gap in their case."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Sternberg Reed Taylor and Gill (A Firm) Times, 26 July 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] EWCA Crim 1870
26 Jul 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Costs
Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of 'unnecessary or improper act or omission' so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the case with the defendant. A re-trial was necessary, and could easily have been avoided.
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 3(c)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte H and D; Admn 30-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 773
 
Regina v West London Youth Court, Ex P J Times, 02 August 1999
2 Aug 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice
When absolutely necessary, it was permissible for a court to allow and depend upon double translation for a defendant. A court offered either double translation or a translator who felt 80 per cent adequate in the language of the defendant. A translator must be impartial (never the appropriate adult), and qualified and fluent. The standards required at interview were also required at trial. There must be a natural understanding between the accused and his interpreter, and the next and the court.

 
In Re P (Restraint Order) (Sale of Assets) Times, 02 August 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 473
2 Aug 1999
CA

Criminal Practice
An interim receiver under the Act was primarily appointed to preserve the assets of the defendant to prevent dissipation, and not to maximise them so as to realise greater sums for the purposes of any eventual confiscation order. He was answerable first to the court, and the court should not withdraw its control to such an extent as to decline intervention unless he could be shown to be wrong.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 26
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Crime: Voluntary Bills) Times, 05 August 1999
5 Aug 1999
LCJ

Criminal Practice
New procedures for judges considering an application for a voluntary bill of indictment. The rules provide for compliance with the acts and rules governing such bills, and detailed disclosure of charges refused by magistrates, of the evidence which brought the bill within the rules. It should be for exceptional considerations of justice not administrative convenience. Notice to the defendant was not required.
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)(b) - Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (1971 No 2084)

 
Re: Howells (Solicitors) [1999] EWCA Crim 2171
5 Aug 1999
CACD

Legal Professions, Costs, Criminal Practice
Appeal Under Section 3(c) of Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 Against a Wasted Costs Order
Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 3(c)
[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Harry Jagdev and Co (Wasted Costs Order) (No 2 of 1999) Gazette, 02 September 1999; Times, 12 August 1999
12 Aug 1999
CA

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
A wasted costs order must specify the amount payable when it is made. It is not open to a judge to go back later and amend the order to correct the defect, and particularly not to do so by awarding a sum greater than the amount claimed. In this case in any event, the award had been at best borderline, the costs incurred had contributed to the swifter disposal of the case.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A - Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

 
Regina v Reid Times, 17 August 1999
17 Aug 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
No matter how strong should the case seem against a defendant, a judge must be scrupulous to sum up the case fairly. It was never appropriate to pose questions to the jury which suggested the answers required, and which favoured the prosecution case, and which indicated the judge's own personal views on the matter.


 
 Regina v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Headley; Admn 19-Aug-1999 - Times, 04 November 1999; [1999] EWHC Admin 803

 
 Detective Inspector Todd Clements v Ed Moloney; CANI 2-Sep-1999 -
 
Wasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997) Times, 02 September 1999
2 Sep 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions
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.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Hemmings; Regina v Miller; Regina v Hoines Times, 15 October 1999; Gazette, 20 October 1999
15 Oct 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
On a re-trial, it remains open to the judge to amend the indictment. Nothing in the Act takes away his powers to do so within the confines set out by the Act. Here a conspiracy charge had been replaced by separate charges of theft. The judge retained his powers under the Indictments Act, and this problem had not been addressed by those passing the later Act.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 7 - Indictments Act 1915 5

 
Regina v Emmett (Stephen Roy) Times, 15 October 1999
15 Oct 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
When the CPS intends to seek an order for costs against a defendant, in future, the defendant must be given notice of the intention to make the application. (it may be that this is to apply in the Court of Appeal only, but this is unclear from the report).

 
Regina v Bedlington Magistrates' Court, ex parte Wilkinson Unreported, 21 October 1999; CO/0900/99
21 Oct 1999
Admn
Moses J, Tuckey LJ
Criminal Practice, Costs
In addition to assessment of his solicitor's bill of costs, the acquitted defendant claimed £3,971.50 as "the costs of a specialist graphics contractor" who had been instructed and paid directly by the defendant. Held: Moses J stated: "It does not follow that, because a solicitor has claimed costs and disbursements, that will necessarily rule out other expenses and disbursements having been incurred by the litigant himself." The matter was remitted for reconsideration of whether the item had been "properly incurred" in the particular circumstances of the case.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate and The Lord Advocate Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd (On Appeal From A Divisional Court Of The Queen's Bench Division); HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 22 December 1999; Gazette, 13 January 2000; [1999] UKHL 51; [2000] 1 All ER 135; [2000] 2 WLR 1; [2001] 1 AC 300
 
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others Times, 02 November 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; [1999] UKHL 43; [2000] 2 AC 326; [1999] 3 WLR 972; [2000] Crim LR 486; [1999] 4 All ER 801; [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275
28 Oct 1999
HL
Lord Hope, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Criminal Practice, Judicial Review, Human Rights
The DPP's appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused's human rights was to be pursued at trial, and not by this form of challenge. The degree of deference to, and/or of recognition of the special competence of, the decision-maker is less and, correspondingly, the intensity of the Court's review is greater – perhaps greatest in an Article 2 case – than for those human rights where the Convention requires a balance to be struck. In considering where the balance lies it may be useful to consider the following questions: (1) what does the prosecution have to prove in order to transfer the onus to the defence? (2) what is the burden on the accused – does it relate to something which is likely to be difficult for him to prove, or does it relate to something which is likely to be within his knowledge or (I would add) to which he readily has access (3) what is the nature of the threat faced by society which the provision is designed to combat?
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 19(1)(aa) - European Convention on Human Rights 2 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Mooney v Cardiff Justices Gazette, 03 November 1999; Times, 17 November 1999
3 Nov 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Costs
Where a prosecution was discontinued and the defendant applied for his costs, the court should need to hear oral evidence before deciding whether his actions had brought the complaint upon himself. It was proper to hear and rely upon prosecution material, but should look for some independent element supporting an allegation.

 
Regina v Ullah Gazette, 03 November 1999; Times, 12 November 1999
3 Nov 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
Counsel, in a trial alleging an indecent assault, had failed to raise with the jury the contents of an illegally taped conversation between the complainant and one of her witnesses encouraging perjury. Held: The defect in counsel's conduct of the case was so significant that the verdict was unsafe. The test to be applied was whether counsel's conduct and decisions had been reasonable. Where they had not, a conviction might be unsafe.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex Parte Tamosius and Partners Times, 10 November 1999; Gazette, 25 November 1999; [2000] 1 WLR 453
10 Nov 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice, Taxes Management
Officers executing a search warrant under the Taxes Management section could properly have accompany them, a legally qualified person who could make immediate assessments of any claim for protection for materials at the property searched by way of legal professional privilege. Such a procedure was sensible. An assertion of a claim of legal privilege was not to be accepted simply as asserted.
Taxes Management Act 1970 20C
1 Citers


 
Regina v Twitchell Times, 10 November 1999; [2000] 1 Cr App R 373
10 Nov 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal is not able to make findings of fact. The ability for example to examine an officer to assist the court in deciding whether the original verdict was based upon ignorance or otherwise of material facts, should be used only carefully, and not extended to include the making of findings of fact. Twitchell had been convicted in 1982. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his appeal to this Court in January 1998. The catalyst was a successful civil action brought by another man Treadaway against the police. It was in April 1994 that Treadaway established in his civil proceedings that one or more of the same officers had acted discreditably in dealing with Treadaway in 1982. In other words, the officers had misbehaved in their dealings with Treadaway at about the same time as the investigation into Twitchell but hard evidence in the form of the outcome of Treadaway's civil action did not become available for a further twelve years.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley; QBD 10-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 25 November 1999; Times, 10 November 1999; [2000] QB 576; [2001] All ER 411; [2000] 2 WLR 409
 
Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina v City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper Times, 07 December 1999; Gazette, 07 January 2000; [1999] 164 JP 209
7 Dec 1999
QBD

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review
There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of 'criminal investigation' has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation into an offence begins before the cut off point after which old, full-style committals cease to be available, and the offence is committed after that date, an old style committal remains available. "In particular this may be so in a surveillance case or where a series of offences is committed, some before and some after the appointed day. Whether, of course, in any given case that is the correct view will be a question of fact for the examining magistrates. They must … ask themselves the simple question: when did the criminal investigation of this offence begin?"
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Wisdom and Sinclair Unreported, 10 December 1999
10 Dec 1999
CACD

Criminal Practice
Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for the inference if that matter is agreed to be true.
Criiminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 834
1 Citers


 
Regina v McCoy [2000] 6 Archbold News 2; 1101674/W4
10 Dec 1999
CACD
Laws LJ
Criminal Practice
The judge should direct the jury fully about the handicap which the inability to cross-examine the witness placed upon the defence, and possible lines of cross-examination which the appellants had lost: "If a statement of a critical witness is to be read to a jury, perhaps especially in an alibi case where identification is the true issue, it must be incumbent on the trial judge to ensure that the jury realise the drawbacks which are imposed on the defence if the prosecution statement is read to them. It is not enough simply to say that counsel has not had the opportunity of cross-examining. The lay jury may not appreciate the significance of that fact. The judge must at least explain that it means that they may feel quite unable to attach anything like as much weight to the evidence in the statement, as they might if it were tested in cross-examination; and where appropriate it would be necessary, certainly desirable, for the judge also to indicate to the jury by way of illustration the sort of matters that might well be put in cross-examination in the particular case. None of that was done in this case."
1 Citers


 
William McDermott v Her Majesty's Advocate [1999] ScotHC 252
17 Dec 1999
HCJ
Lady Cosgrove and Lord Allanbridge and Lord Justice Clerk
Scotland, Criminal Practice
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had given details of an alibi, but it appeared this might not have been fully investigated, in satisfying the duty imposed on the prosecutor by section 36. The status of the section was questioned. Held: The section imposed no duty on the prosecutor to communicate the results of his investigation, and no sanction for breach of it. The prosecutor should not be required to lead evidence that he had complied with the section.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 36(10) 205(2)
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.