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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 108 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v T [2002] 1 WLR 632
2001
CACD
Keene LJ
Criminal Practice
The defendant was not to be allowed to cross-examine the complainaint in a sexual offence case as to her previous sexual history, where there was no evidential basis for the cross-exmination.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Gill [2001] Cr App R 160
2001
CACD

Criminal Practice

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
1 Citers


 
Regina v Sawyer [2001] 2 SCR 344
2001

Arbour J
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Canada) the court considered the reasons underlying the need for secrecy of a jury's deliberations: "The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred. This rationale is of vital importance to the potential acquittal of an unpopular accused, or one charged with a particularly repulsive crime. In my view, this rationale is sound, and does not require empirical confirmation. The Court of Appeal also placed considerable weight on the second rationale for the secrecy rule: the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement. That rationale is more abstract, and inevitably invites the question of why the finality of the verdict should prevail over its integrity in cases where that integrity is seriously put in issue. In a legal environment such as ours, which provides for generous review of judicial decisions on appeal, and which does not perceive the voicing of dissenting opinions on appeal as a threat to the authority of the law, I do not consider that finality, standing alone, is a convincing rationale for requiring secrecy. The respondent, as well as the interveners supporting its position and, in particular, the Attorney General of Quebec, place great emphasis on the third main rationale for the jury secrecy rule - the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals. Our system of jury selection is sensitive to the privacy interests of prospective jurors (see R v Williams [1998] 1 SCR 1128), and the proper functioning of the jury system, a constitutionally protected right in serious criminal charges, depends upon the willingness of jurors to discharge their functions honestly and honourably. This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy. I am fully satisfied that a considerable measure of secrecy surrounding the deliberations of the jury is essential to the proper functioning of that important institution and that the preceding rationales serve as a useful guide to the boundaries between the competing demands of secrecy and reviewability."
1 Citers


 
S v Miller 2001 SC 977
2001
SCS
Lord President (Rodger), Lord Penrose, Lord Macfadyen
Children, Criminal Practice
After an assault S, aged 15, was detained, arrested and charged with assaulting L. The procurator fiscal decided not to prosecute, and the matter was reported to the police and to the reporter and on to a children's hearing to consider if measures of supervision were necessary and also if he had committed an offence. S to denied an assault, and that question was referred to a sheriff for determination. Such a proceeding had some features of a criminal proceeding. The criminal burden applied and an adverse finding would be a conviction to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applied. It was accepted by S in the Court of Session that the children's hearing would determine S's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of article 6; the question was whether, as S contended, it would determine a criminal charge against him within the meaning of the article. The reporter tried to show that S had committed a criminal assault, but the proceedings were categorised as civil and not criminal. Held: Ruling against S on this issue. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord President: "In itself the character which the proceedings have in our domestic law is not, of course, conclusive of the character which they should have under the Convention. Nevertheless, if one asks why, ultimately, Parliament has provided for civil rather than criminal proceedings, then the answer must be that, even though they may involve establishing that the child has committed an offence, there is no possibility of the child being punished, having a penalty imposed. On the contrary, in a sec 52(2)(i) case, as in any other, the aim of all the measures in chap 3 of the 1995 Act is, as its title proclaims, the 'Protection and Supervision of Children'. More particularly, sec 52 deals with 'Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision' and so the aim of all such proceedings is for the hearing to determine whether the child concerned requires such compulsory supervision in his own interests, the decision always being taken with the child's welfare as the paramount consideration (sec 16(1)). Similarly, the reporter can refer a case to a hearing under sec 65(1) for determination on the merits only if he is satisfied, not merely that the child has committed an offence, but also that compulsory measures of supervision are necessary. In my view such proceedings which are instituted to promote the child's welfare and have no penal element at all do not involve 'the determination … of any criminal charge against' the child in terms of art 6."
and "the very titles of such codes of criminal law will often reveal that they are indeed concerned essentially with 'matière pénale'. For instance, in France there is a 'code pénale', in Italy a 'codice penale', in Spain a 'código penal' and in Germany a 'Strafgesetzbuch'. It follows that when, in such cases as Öztürk, the court investgiates whether the text defining the offence belongs to criminal law, it is investigating whether the text belongs to an area of the law where proceedings can result in a penalty being imposed."
Lord Penrose and Lord Macfadyen concluded that the proceedings did not involve the determination of a criminal charge since they were not of a penal character but were designed to promote the welfare of the child. The criminal proceedings against S came to an end when the procurator fiscal decided not to proceed with the charge.
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 52(2)
1 Citers



 
 Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) (Rogan); CANI 2001 - [2001] NI 366
 
Barton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] EWHC Admin 223
2001
Admn
Kennedy LJ and Astill J
Criminal Practice
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the Stipendiary Magistrates' decision that an information alleging theft of £1,338.23 over a period of years did not offend against the rule that an information should only allege a single offence. The evidence in support of the charge indicated that there had been 94 takings from the cash register covered by debit entries. Held: After reviewing the authorities on "continuous offences", and despite the fact that the individual appropriations were each capable of being separately identified, that it was permissible to charge the whole course of conduct as a continuous offence because the defendant had no specific explanation for individual takings and put forward the same defence for all takings. The Magistrate accordingly was in a position to disregard any amount that he was unsure that the defendant had taken.
Kennedy LJ said: "Here the prosecution's case was, we understand, set out in a schedule with dates and amounts indicating what was involved. Undoubtedly, each line in the schedule could have been charged as a separate offence, but had they been so charged, on average the amount involved would have been about £15. Even if there had been 10 informations, the amount would still be under £200. It simply would not represent the overall criminality, which, as we have already indicated, amounted to a sum in excess of £1300. Specimen counts or specimen informations are no longer a possibility, in the light of the relatively recent decisions of this Court and of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. To have 94 separate informations would have rightly been regarded as oppressive."
1 Citers


 
Maan Petitioner 2001 SCCR 172
2001

Lord Macfadyen
criminal Practice
The accused sought to defend a charge on indictment of assault on a special defence of self-defence and gave notice of an intention to attack the character of the complainer and the other two Crown witnesses. He sought the previous convictions of the complainer and these witnesses, as well as those relating to a third witness who had been cited for the defence. Held: The court declined to follow Ashrif and ordered production of the previous convictions of all four witnesses: "In my opinion, provided the witnesses' previous convictions are relevant to a legitimate attack on character or to their credibility, the material sought would plainly be relevant to his defence. It is therefore material which the petitioner is prima facie entitled to have disclosed to him. Moreover, in my view he is prima facie entitled to have it disclosed to him in advance of the trial. His right is to have disclosed to him material necessary for the proper preparation as well as the proper presentation of his defence. Possession of information about the witnesses' relevant criminal records would enable the petitioner's counsel or solicitor to make proper preparation for the cross-examination of the witnesses in question. Lack of that information in advance would not wholly preclude the contemplated lines of cross-examination, but would make embarking on them a much more uncertain course. Matters of credibility and character depend very much on the impressions made on the jury, and cross-examination might well be less effective if embarked upon without knowledge of the detail of the witnesses' records. An impression unfairly unfavourable to the petitioner might be made on the jury if cross-examination were embarked upon on his behalf, appeared to be unsuccessful, then was followed by re-examination which showed that the cross-examiner had been ill-informed."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Evans v Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 369

 
 Regina v Clerk to Liverpool Magistrates' Court Ex Parte McCormick; Regina v Same; Ex Parte Larkin; QBD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001

 
 Regina v Langford; CACD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001
 
Regina v John Spear, Philip Hastie and David Morton Boyd Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 30 January 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1751
15 Jan 2001
CMAC

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces
The fact that the President of a Court Martial was appointed within the same authority as was prosecuting, did not necessarily mean that the tribunal was not impartial. Such officers were typically appointed at the end of their careers, and they were appointed for a fixed term. There was no history of them being removed, and the circumstances were impartial. The test was not some neurotic distrust, but rather the absence of any appearance of bias on a reasonable view. The system met that standard.
Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wildman v Director of Public Prosecutions; CA 23-Jan-2001 - Times, 08 February 2001
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court at Leicester and Others [2001] EWHC Admin 33
24 Jan 2001
Admn
Lord Wool of Barnes LCJ, Newman J
Criminal Practice
Application for judicial review in respect of an order for costs made against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in relation to proceedings brought by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Prosecution of Offences Act 198519(1) - Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Terence Leslie Shields v Crown Court At Liverpool and the Lord Chancellor [2001] EWHC Admin 90
26 Jan 2001
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Henworth Times, 30 January 2001
30 Jan 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice
There is no rule of law to say that a third trial taken as far as a jury decision was an abuse of process. Dicta that that was the case were obiter. The question of whether there was oppression was to be decided on the facts of each case.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v John Victor Hayward, Anthony William Jones, Paul Nigel Purvis; CACD 31-Jan-2001 - Times, 14 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 168; [2001] 3 WLR 125; [2001] Cr App R 11; [2001] QB 862

 
 Regina v R; CACD 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 February 2001; Gazette, 26 April 2001

 
 Regina v Craven; CACD 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 February 2001
 
Her Majesty's Advocate and Another v Mcintosh Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 08 February 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 107; DRA No 12 of 2000; [2003] 1 AC 1078; [2001] UKPCD 1; [2001] 2 All ER 638; 2001 SC (PC) 89; [2001] 2 Cr App R 27; 2001 GWD 6-206; [2001] HRLR 20; 2001 SLT 304; 2001 SCCR 191; [2001] UKHRR 463
5 Feb 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Evidence, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with his article 6 rights. The first question was whether he remained a person "charged with a criminal offence". The Court felt not. The application was not initiated by the complainant, could only be made after a conviction, and was part of the sentencing procedure,. The defendant was accused of no additional criminal activity, the statement lodged in support of an application for confiscation order was an accounting statement and not an accusation, the sum ordered did not be the profit from drug trafficking or any other offence, and the time order to be served in the case of default related to the failure, not to any underlying offence, any risk that matters referred to in the statement might be subject to a later charge, left a possibility of double jeopardy, and the proceedings and did not conclude in the verdict. The statutory scheme laid down by a democratically elected parliament should not be readily rejected. The sources of the assets was known to the defendant and a defendant explain them would not be faced with a court order.
Criminal confiscation proceedings do not amount to the bringing of a fresh criminal charge and thus Art. 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not directly engaged. However, a court is required to act with "scrupulous fairness" in making its assessment for the purposes of a confiscation order. Further, the proceedings are designed to be fully adversarial, affording the accused every opportunity to challenge evidence against him and to call witnesses.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 3(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 United States Government v Montgomery and Another; HL 6-Feb-2001 - Times, 06 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 196; [2001] 1 All ER 815; [2001] UKHL 3
 
Bank of Scotland v A Ltd and Others (Serious Fraud Office, Interested Party) Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 01 March 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 754; [2001] EWCA Civ 52
6 Feb 2001
CA
Lord Woolf CJ
Criminal Practice, Banking
A bank, having been informed that the activities of a customer involved money laundering, found itself in a position where, if it paid out the funds, it would face conviction, but if it failed to do so, it be found to be involved in tipping off the customer. Held: This is one of the few situations where an application could be made to court for a declaration. The appropriate defendant was the Serious Fraud Office, not the customer. The court would not normally be willing to grant a declaration to save a citizen who was faced with a normal even if difficult commercial decision. Discussing legal privilege: "During argument there was discussion as to the extent of the defence provided by section 93D(4). Mr Crow helpfully drew our attention to the similarity between the language of section 93D(4) and the scope of legal professional privilege. Based on this assistance, we conclude that the subsection broadly protects a legal adviser when that adviser is engaged in activities which attract legal professional privilege."
Criminal Justice Act 1988 93A 93B 93C
1 Citers


 
Regina v B (A minor) Gazette, 08 February 2001
8 Feb 2001
CA

Criminal Practice
A youth aged fourteen had been committed to the Crown Court for trial on allegations of indecency. It was quite inappropriate for such cases to be heard in that court, not only for the youth of the defendant, but also because of the age of the complainant witnesses. In this case it could not have been said that the youth court would not have had sufficient sentencing powers.

 
Regina v Weir Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 09 February 2001
9 Feb 2001
HL

Criminal Practice
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The application was lodged one day out of time, but it remained out of time. The prosecution asserted that the House had the discretion to extend the time for appeal. History showed that such discretion had been given the courts on several occasions with regard to applications by the defence, but no such statutory extension had been given to the prosecution. It was clear that a distinction should be drawn between the application of the rules to the defence and to the prosecution. The jurisdiction of the House of Lords in such matters is statutory and, subject only to the Human Rights Act, the House of Lords had no power to vary its jurisdiction.

 
Regina v L Times, 09 February 2001
9 Feb 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
Both counsel in criminal trials have a duty to assist the judge where appropriate. Counsel for the defence in particular could not sit back and allow the judge to continue with a defective summing up in the hope that this would allow a later appeal. Submissions that it had been common and acceptable practice for counsel to remain silent rather than to intervene was incorrect.

 
Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 224; [2001] 2 Crim App R 16
9 Feb 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Penry-Davey, And The Judge Advocate General
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of the judge's direction as to the the conclusions to be drawn by the jury from his silence. Held: S34 must now be interpreted in the light of the 1998 Act. An appropriate balance has been drawn between the exercise by an accused of his right to silence and the fair drawing of an adverse inference. Where an appellant had received legal advice not to answer questions, it was the genuineness of the decision which is relevant and not its quality. The jury had to determine whether or not the real reason for the appellant's silence was because of the legal advice that he or she had received or was in truth that they had no or no adequate explanation to give to the case against them.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984 34 - Human Rights Act 1998 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Flitter Times, 13 February 2001
13 Feb 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
There is no need on a charge alleging rape to separate into separate counts on the indictment allegations of acting knowingly and acting recklessly as to whether the woman consented. That the prosecution had set out to establish knowledge of lack of consent did not mean that they had abandoned an assertion of recklessness. It would be foolish and bizarre of a prosecutor to do so.
Sexual Offences Act 1956 1


 
 Regina v Stone; CACD 14-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 22 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 297; [2001] Crim LR 465
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lonsdale Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 16 February 2001
16 Feb 2001
QBD

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice
Where a motorist told an officer at the roadside that he suffered from bronchitis, and could not provide a specimen of breath, and he wanted to rely upon the same reason at the police station, he could not claim that the officer in the station should know of his objection, but should make it clear again. It was not open to him to say nothing at all, to make no attempt to provide a specimen, and then later to seek to assert a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen of breath. There was no need to look at the two sections concurrently. The later subsection had been irrelevant in this matter.
Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a), 7(3)(a), 7(6)


 
 Regina v Charles, Regina v Tucker; CACD 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1755; [2001] 2 Cr App R 15

 
 Regina v Feltham Magistrate's Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 21-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1293; [2001] 2 Cr App R 23; [2001] EWHC Admin 130; [2002] RTR 7; [2001] 1 All ER 831; [2001] Crim LR 741
 
Practice Direction (Crown Court: Allocation of Business) (No 4) Times, 22 February 2001
22 Feb 2001
LCJ

Criminal Practice
The direction 'Allocation of business within the Crown Court' is amended with immediate effect to allow class 3 cases to be tried by a High Court judge, or by another judge subject to the Presiding judge's directions, or by a recorder who had attended Judicial Studies Board training. Class 4 cases might be tried by a High Court judge with the consent of a Presiding judge, but would otherwise be tried before a circuit judge, or recorder (not necessarily having attended the Judicial Studies Board seminar).


 
 Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise; QBD 23-Feb-2001 - Times, 23 February 2001
 
Regina on the Application of Hestview Ltd v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2001] EWHC Admin 144; [2001] EWHC Admin 588
23 Feb 2001
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v B (Child: Mode of trial for indecency) Times, 27 February 2001
27 Feb 2001
CACD

Children, Criminal Practice
A boy aged fourteen should not have been tried in the Crown Court for allegations of indecency when the complainants were also child witnesses. Such a procedure was not in the interests either of the defendant nor of the complainants. In this case also it could not have been thought that the sentencing powers of the Youth Court would be inadequate.

 
Luca v Italy (2001) 36 EHRR 807; 33354/96; (2003) 36 EHRR 46; [2001] ECHR 124
27 Feb 2001
ECHR
Palm, President, Thomassen, Jorundsson, Birsan, Casadevall, Zupancic, judges
Criminal Practice
The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses. Held: Saunders had established the integral part of a fair trial played by the right of silence. The inability to cross examine a witness was in an infringement of his rights: "As the court has stated on a number of occasions . . it may prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage (in particular where the witness refuses to repeat his deposition in public owing to fears for his safety, a not infrequent occurrence in trials concerning Mafia-type organisations). If the defendant has been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the depositions, either when made or at a later stage, their admission in evidence will not in itself contravene Article 6.1 and 3(d). The corollary of that, however, is that where the conviction is both solely or to a decisive degree based on depositions that had been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6."
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Crown Prosecution Service v Tweddell [2001] EWHC Admin 188; [2002] 2 FLR 400
1 Mar 2001
Admn
Latham LJ, Astill J
Criminal Practice
The defendant was accused of assualting his wife. He had already been brought before the court for contempt of court, and been sentenced to three months' imprisonment and he now said that this prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Held: The appeal was allowed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister) Times, 21 March 2001
21 Mar 2001
HL

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant's sexual history. Though the Crown would conduct the appeal, the Home Secretary, whose Act was in issue sought to be joined. The case was still in anticipation of the trial, and the rules anticipated notice being served when such a declaration was considered. Nevertheless, the proposal would improve efficiency, and the Director of Public Prosecutions served a different function in the appeal. The Home Secretary could be allowed to be joined at this stage.
Human Rights Act 1998 5 41 - Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2036) - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
1 Citers


 
Regina v T; Regina v K Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 11 January 2001
22 Mar 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
All cases against children should be tried in the Youth Court, and not transferred to the Crown Court save for the most grave offences. In this case, the allegations included one of common assault. The appeal court had no power on this occasion to set aside the transfer, but since the accusation of common assault was only triable summarily, the indictment as a whole was invalid and was quashed.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 53 (4)


 
 Regina v Burley, Molnar, Stanton; CACD 22-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 731
 
Regina v Redbridge Youth Court and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 209; [2001] 1 WLR 2403
22 Mar 2001
Admn

Criminal Practice
The sections were exceptions to the normal practice of giving evidence in the court room, for which in the case of live link an individual case had to be made each time. The court should strike a balance between the "right of the defendant to have a hearing in accordance with the norm" and "the interests not only of the child witness but also of justice, to ensure that the witness will be able to give evidence and give evidence unaffected by the stress of appearing in court itself."
Criminal Justice Act 1988 32 32A
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Williams Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 11 May 2001
30 Mar 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice, Human Rights
A breach of article 6.2 of the Convention in a trial need not automatically lead to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe. The judge had failed to direct the jury to the effect that the offence of robbery required proof of the element of dishonesty. The court was entitled to conclude that that would not have made any difference to the verdict. There need be no difference on this question when the breach was of article 6.2 rather than 6.1.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1 6.2

 
Regina v G and Others Times, 30 March 2001; Gazette, 17 May 2001
30 Mar 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
A judge's ruling as to the scope of an indictment at a preliminary hearing was within the section since it identified issues 'likely to be material … to the jury' Accordingly the judge was determining an issue of law rather than management, and his decision was appealable. The judge had ruled as to the range of the conspiracy arising from the evidence to be presented by the Crown.
Criminal Justice Act 1987 7(1)(a) 9(3)(c)

 
Belfast Telegraph Newspapers Ltd, In the Matter of [2001] NICA 20
3 Apr 2001
CANI

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice, Media

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Dotto CC No 21 of 2001
4 Apr 2001


Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(Supreme Court of Gibraltar) A successful defendant in criminal proceedings is not entitled to any award of costs against the prosecution.
1 Citers


 
Forrester Bowe (Junior) v The Queen Appeal No 48 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 19
10 Apr 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
PC (The Bahamas) The Board considered a suggestion that the defendants second re-trial for murder was an abuse of process: "It is a common practice for prosecutors in England and Wales to offer no evidence against a defendant if two previous juries have been unable to agree . . but that is no more than a convention, as recognised by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Henworth . . it may well be that the prosecuting authorities, having failed to obtain a conviction even by a majority on two occasions, judge that a further trial will not have a reasonable prospect of culminating in a conviction. It is in the first instance for the prosecutor to judge whether, taking account of all relevant considerations, the public interest is better served by offering no evidence or by seeking a further re-trial. There is plainly no rule of law in this country which forbids a prosecutor from seeking a second re-trial . . there may of course be cases in which, on their particular facts, a second re-trial may be oppressive and unjust…whether a second re-trial should be permitted depends on an informed and dispassionate assessment of how the interests of justice in the widest sense are best served. Full account must be taken of the defendant's interests . . account must also be taken of the public interest in convicting the guilty, deterring violent crime and maintaining confidence in the efficacy of the criminal justice system."
(The Bahamas)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Boodram v The State Times, 15 May 2001; No 65 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 18; [2002] 1 Cr App R 103
10 Apr 2001
PC
Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant's counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to assess what could be done to redress any prejudice or potential prejudice to the defendant. He also failed to pursue an allegation that the defendant had signed her confession only after being raped in the cells by a police sergeant. The appellant was accused of having murdered her husband by poisoning. Held: Where a defence case had clearly been conducted in an incompetent manner, to an extent that the defendant could not be said to have had a fair trial, then it was appropriate to set aside the conviction which followed. An appellate court should approach complaints about counsel's incompetence and its effects on a trial, with a healthy scepticism, but where the failure was fundamental, a court should only with great care find that the jury would have reached the same decision even with competent counsel.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Regina v Craven Gazette, 12 April 2001
12 Apr 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice
In appropriate cases, a defect in the trial which made that trial unfair, could be remedied on appeal by that court considering all the evidence available to it. It was recognised that this would trespass on the responsibilities of the jury, but if the court considered that, in the light of all the evidence including evidence previously excluded, the verdict was correct, then the court should let the decision stand. The defects in this case were not sufficient to justify the verdict being set aside, and DNA evidence which had been obtained subsequently only confirmed it.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968

 
Regina v Lewis Times, 26 April 2001
26 Apr 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
After a conviction a juror wrote to the court to say that the jury had not been unanimous. The defendant appealed. The court refused to become involved in an investigation of the activities in the jury room. In this case, the time had passed when the judge could have accepted a majority verdict. An investigation could not be appropriate where the verdict was unambiguous, free of procedural defect, and there had been no dissent at the time.

 
Regina v Brown (Davina) Times, 01 May 2001; [2002] 1 Cr App R 5
1 May 2001
CACD
Longmore LJ
Criminal Practice
A judge had a continuing duty during a trial to keep in mind the possibility of directing an acquittal. He must take care not to usurp the jury's function. Nevertheless that jurisdiction should be exercised only sparingly, and only where he was satisfied that no jury could properly convict on the basis of the evidence put before them. A trial judge could intervene, even at the end of a defence case, to withdraw a case from the jury where he concludes that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could safely convict the defendant of the charge before them.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Lichniak; Regina v Pyrah; CACD 2-May-2001 - Times, 16 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 294; [2001] 3 WLR 933; [2002] QB 296
 
Regina v Eubank Times, 03 May 2001
3 May 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
Where a defendant admitted robbery but denied having a firearm, the judge held a Newton trial to decide the issue. The defendant appealed, saying that such a serious issue should properly have been tried as a separate count on the indictment, and he should have had the opportunity to put his case before a jury. Held: The Newton trial was inappropriate. It was a grave allegation, and the need for economy should not be allowed to remove that protection. The defendant was re-sentenced on the basis that he had not had a firearm.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Cameron Times, 03 May 2001
3 May 2001
CACD

Criminal Practice
Under appropriate circumstances, it might be appropriate for the judge to take over from defence counsel the cross examination of the complainant. Here the child complainant in a case of sex abuse and rape, refused to answer questions from defence counsel. The judge discussed the matter with defence and prosecution counsel in the absence of the witness and jury. He was given a copy of defence counsel's questions, and indicated where he was not inclined to ask the questions. Prosecution counsel was denied a re-examination. The jury were warned appropriately. The trial was fair, but the procedure might only be used in exceptional cases and not involving adult witnesses.

 
Regina v Kansal, on a Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission (2) Times, 11 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1260; [2001] 3 WLR 751
24 May 2001
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Rougier J, McCombie J
Criminal Practice, Administrative, Human Rights
Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected common law the effect could be retrospective, since common law was deemed always to have been the way it now is. The result was that standards of evidence in criminal cases had retrospectively made many convictions liable to be set aside.
"(i) The CCRC, subject to the proper exercise of the discretion conferred by section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, can refer to this court a conviction following a trial whenever it took place;
(ii) this court, once such a reference has been made, has no option, however old the case, but to declare the conviction unsafe if that is the result either of the admission of evidence obtained in breach of article 6 or of a change in the common law, which is deemed always to have been that which it is authoritatively declared to be, as, for example, by reason of R v Preddy",
Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc; CACD 24-May-2001 - Times, 20 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1364

 
 Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court; HL 24-May-2001 - Gazette, 24 May 2001; Times, 13 March 2001; [2001] UKHL 12; [2001] 2 All ER 1; [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20; [2001] 2 WLR 865; (2001) 165 JPN 327; [2001] ACD 82; (2001) 165 JP 465; [2001] HRLR 29

 
 Wood, Regina v; CACD 25-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1395

 
 Regina v G (Autrefois acquit); CACD 25-May-2001 - Times, 25 May 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001
 
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Crane and Another Times, 04 June 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001
4 Jun 2001
ChD

Company, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Outside of any statutory limitations, there was nothing to prevent a prosecutor making use of helpful ideas disclosed in civil proceedings in his case against a defendant. Questions about a defendant's right of silence in criminal proceedings did not apply in civil matters. Judges in either court had powers to control their proceedings to prevent unfairness, but the purposes of the civil court could not be delayed indefinitely because of a risk that the defendant might be prejudiced in later criminal proceedings.
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 20

 
Peter David Kelly v Her Majesty's Advocate [2001] ScotHC 35
6 Jun 2001
ScHC

Scotland, Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others Times, 12 June 2001; Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1075; [2001] 1 WLR 1983
12 Jun 2001
CACD
Longmore LJ
Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made.
Longmore LJ said: "It is clear that the duty of the Court of Appeal when exercising this jurisdiction is not merely to review the decision of the trial judge who made the order under challenge, but rather to come to its own independent conclusions on the material placed before it"
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2) - Criminal Justice Act 1988 159 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Claydon; Regina v Regina v Hall; Regina v Costall; Regina v French; CACD 13-Jun-2001 - Times, 13 February 2004; [2001] EWCA Crim 1359; [2004] 1 WLR 1575
 
Dechert Solicitors, Regina (on The Application of) v Southwark Crown Court [2001] EWHC Admin 477
14 Jun 2001
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Criminal Practice
Application for the judicial review of an Order made in a criminal matter against a Mr Daulby. His solicitors, who are the Claimants in these judicial review proceedings, sought directions in respect of the Restraint Order which had been made by the High Court in respect of Mr Daulby and restrained him from dealing with his assets in much the same way as a freezing injunction does in civil proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of A and Snaresbrook Crown Court Times, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 456
14 Jun 2001
Admn

Company, Crime, Criminal Practice
A company director can be convicted of theft from his company even though the act might technically be the act of the company. Here company directors had paid bribes to people with whom the company intended to do business. The bribes were paid out of company funds and with the intention of benefiting the company. Nevertheless, appropriation under the Act, does not need to be without the consent of the owner. The dishonesty element must be directed toward the owner of the property.
Theft Act 1968 3(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Atlan v The United Kingdom Times, 03 July 2001; 36533/97; (2001) 34 EHRR 833; [2001] ECHR 397
19 Jun 2001
ECHR

Criminal Practice, Human Rights
It was an infringement of the defendant's right to a fair trial for the trial judge not to be involved in ex parte applications to exclude evidence. The defect could not be remedied by the same evidence later being presented also to the appeal court on an ex parte basis. There is a general requirement to disclose to the defence all material in the possession of the prosecutor which might be relevant. Though it might be necessary to withhold some material in order to protect the rights of somebody else, but that could only be appropriate where strictly necessary. Here the prosecutor had repeatedly denied the existence of such material, and such behaviour must make for a denial of a fair trial.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
SBC v The United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 619; [2001] ECHR 396; 39360/98; [2001] ECHR 400
19 Jun 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of a grave offence after being convicted for a first.
European Convention on Human Rights 5(3) - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court Times, 21 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1828; [2001] EWHC Admin 402
21 Jun 2001
QBD
Woolf LJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection of the defendant. Indeed knowing of that original application might allow the defendant greater protection. The fact that magistrates were judges both of the law and of the facts in a case did not sufficiently distinguish them from other decision makers, and the approval of such an approach under the Act should be extended to magistrates also.
Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara [2001] EWHC 493 (Admin); [2002] 1 Cr App R 16; [2002] 1 WLR 815; [2001] 4 All ER 559; [2002] 1 WLR 815
21 Jun 2001
Admn
Rose LJ, Silber J
Police, Criminal Practice
The Director challenged the decision of the magistrates to stay a prosecution of the defendant as an abuse of process. The defendant had been interviewed without a solicitor. He went away to seek legal advice. The solicitor requested a copy of the interview tape. None was provided, but a caution offered instead. The defendant refused the caution on advice because without the tape, the solicitor could not establish whether a caution was properly based. Held: The appeal failed.
Rose LJ said: "the justices were fully entitled to conclude that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process, the police having refused to disclose the terms of the interview, without which informed advice and informed consent to a caution could not properly be given. I make it clear that this does not mean that there is a general obligation on the police to disclose material prior to charge. That would, in many cases, be impracticable and, in some cases, (for example where there is an ongoing investigation) highly undesirable, as well as being outwith the contemplation of the legislation, the code or anything to be implied therefrom. But, in the present case, the failure to disclose the terms of the interview followed by the institution and pursuit of a criminal trial in the circumstances described amply justified the justices in reaching the conclusion which they did. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Bozturk) v Thames Magistrates' Court Times, 26 June 2001
26 Jun 2001
QBD

Criminal Practice
The interpreter who had assisted the police at the police station was also called by them to assist in interpretation at court. Whilst at court she interpreted for the duty solicitor. The duty solicitor was not informed of her previous involvement. It was held that although in this case no practical detriment occurred, the duty solicitor should have been told of the earlier use. An interpreter at charge could be called as a prosecution witness as to the propriety of acts in the police station, and was not an appropriate person to be present between translating for the defendant in a privileged interview.

 
In re Norris, Application by Norris Times, 29 June 2001; Gazette, 26 July 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1388; [2001] UKHL 34; [2001] 3 FCR 97; [2001] 3 All ER 961
28 Jun 2001
HL
Hope, Browne-Wilkinson, Clyde, Hutton, Hobhouse LL
Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice
The applicant's husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was held that the civil court was looking to different issues. In the Crown Court the onus had been on the husband. She had no right of representation, and her interests were not the same as those of her husband. She was to be allowed to challenge the order made. As the registered proprietor, the burden of proof lay on customs and excise.
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough referred to earlier cases: "These are illustrations of the principle of abuse of process. Any such abuse must involve something which amounts to a misuse of the litigational process. Clear cases of litigating without any honest belief in any basis for doing so or litigating without having any legitimate interest in the litigation are simple cases of abuse. Attempts to relitigate issues which have already been the subject of judicial decision may or may not amount to an abuse of process. Ordinarily such situations fall to be governed by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam or of issue estoppel (admitted not to be applicable in the present case). It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse."
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ House of Lords ]
 
Regina v Pan; Regina v Sawyer (2001) 147 OAC 1; (2001) 85 CRR (2d) 1; (2001) 43 CR (5th) 203; (2001) 155 CCC (3d) 97; (2001) 200 DLR (4th) 577; [2001] 2 SCR 344
29 Jun 2001


Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy and Criminal Code prohibition on disclosure of information about “proceedings of the jury” consistent with principles of fundamental justice – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Juries – Rule of jury secrecy – Common law rule of jury secrecy providing that evidence concerning jury deliberations is inadmissible on appeal to impeach jury’s verdict – Whether common law rule of jury secrecy constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.
Criminal law – Juries – Disclosure of jury proceedings – Criminal Code prohibiting disclosure of information about “proceedings of the jury” except where disclosure is in context of obstruction of justice proceedings involving a juror – Whether provision constitutional – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 649.
Criminal law – Abuse of process – Fundamental justice – Double jeopardy – Whether mistrial improperly declared at end of accused’s second trial – Whether proceedings against accused should have been stayed at outset of third trial – Whether holding of third trial violated principle against double jeopardy – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 11(h).
Criminal law – Charge to jury – Reasonable doubt – Accused convicted of first degree murder – Whether pre-Lifchus charge on reasonable doubt in substantial compliance with principles set out in Lifchus.
1 Citers

[ Canlii ]
 
Regina v Pan [2001] 2 SCR 344; 200 DLR (4th) 577; 155 CCC (3d) 97; 2001 SCC 42
29 Jun 2001

Arbour J
Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the reason behind the common law rule against a court examining the activities of a jury: "the rule seeks to preserve the secrecy of the jury's deliberations, while ensuring that those deliberations remain untainted by contact with information or individuals from outside the jury. As a result, where the evidence establishes that the jury has been exposed to outside information or influences, it will generally be admissible." However the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic matters "is not always self-evident and it is not possible to articulate with complete precision what is contemplated by the idea of a matter "extrinsic" to the jury deliberation process." It is a distinction which is at times "difficult to discern."
Arbour J identified the principal reasons for the common law rule of jury secrecy: "The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred. This rationale is of vital importance to the potential acquittal of an unpopular accused, or one charged with a particularly repulsive crime. In my view, this rationale is sound, and does not require empirical confirmation.
The Court of Appeal also placed considerable weight on the second rationale for the secrecy rule: the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement. That rationale is more abstract, and inevitably invites the question of why the finality of the verdict should prevail over its integrity in cases where that integrity is seriously put in issue. In a legal environment such as ours, which provides for generous review of judicial decisions on appeal, and which does not perceive the voicing of dissenting opinions on appeal as a threat to the authority of the law, I do not consider that finality, standing alone, is a convincing rationale for requiring secrecy.
The respondent, as well as the interveners supporting its position and, in particular, the Attorney General of Quebec, place great emphasis on the third main rationale for the jury secrecy rule – the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals. Our system of jury selection is sensitive to the privacy interests of prospective jurors ..., and the proper functioning of the jury system, a constitutionally protected right in serious criminal charges, depends upon the willingness of jurors to discharge their functions honestly and honourably. This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy.”
1 Citers

[ Vcanlii ]

 
 Regina on the Application of Hussain v Derby Magistrates' Court and Lord Chancellor's Department; Admn 3-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC Admin 507; [2001] All ER (D) 26; [2001] 1 WLR 245

 
 Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001); CACD 12-Jul-2001 - Times, 12 July 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1869; [2001] EWCA Crim 1568
 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara Times, 16 July 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001
16 Jul 2001
QBD
Rose LJ, Silber J
Criminal Practice, Police
The defendant had been interviewed at the police station, and told that, in the light of his admission, he would be cautioned. He returned with a solicitor, who said that before he could advise his client to accept the caution, he needed to hear the interview tape, and to see the evidence. The police refused access, and the defendant was charged. He then successfully applied for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The prosecutor appealed. The court said that without that information, the solicitor could not properly advise his client. The defendant was entitled to informed legal advice. This should not be taken as creating a general obligation on police to provide wide ranging disclosure before charge.

 
Newton Spence v The Queen No 47 of 2000; [2001] UKPC 35
16 Jul 2001
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Sir Patrick Russell, Sir Christopher Staughton, Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Philip Otton
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(St. Vincent and the Grenadines) The appellant had been convicted of murder. The victim had died but partly as a result of the surgery to save him. The judge correctly directed the jury that they must be sure the original wound was a continuing, operative and substantial cause of death. The judge discharged one juror late in the trial because she wanted to go on holiday. This was not a proper reason, and the effect was potentially to deprive either party of a proper verdict. The conviction must be quashed.
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]

 
 Bennett and Augustus John v The Queen; PC 17-Jul-2001 - [2001] UKPC 37; Appeal No 74 of 2000
 
Regina (Stevens) v Truro Magistrates' Court Times, 27 July 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 558; [2001] EWHC QB 385
18 Jul 2001
QBD
Brooke LJ, Morison J
Criminal Practice
A court granted bail subject to provision of title deeds to a property as security. The defendant deposited a charge certificate with the owner's consent, but then absconded. The court sought to forfeit the entire property, the owner of the charge sought to protect her interest. Held: The court had not made clear just what it wanted to obtain as security. It was the defendant who gave security, and any security should be limited to his interest. Loose reference to title deeds in such an order was only likely to lead to confusion, and courts might follow the advice given that they should generally seek cash or banker's drafts for security. The court should not become involved in questioning the arrangement between the defendant and any third party providing security.
Bail Act 1976 (5) - Crime and Disorder Act 1998 54(1)
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Mohammed Al Jamil; CACD 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 25 October 2001

 
 Regina v Qureshi; CACD 23-Jul-2001 - Gazette, 20 September 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 518; [2002] Crim LR 62

 
 Millar v Dickson; PC 24-Jul-2001 - Times, 27 July 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1615; DRA Nos 5, 6, 7, and 8 of 2000; [2001] UKHRR 999; 2001 SLT 988; 2002 SC (PC) 30; [2002] 3 All ER 1041; [2001] HRLR 59; [2001] UKPC D4; 2001 SCCR 741; 2001 GWD 26-1015
 
Ilijkov v Bulgaria 33977/96; [2001] ECHR 489
26 Jul 2001
ECHR

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

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
In re G Unreported, 30 July 2001; [2001] EWHC (QB)
30 Jul 2001
QBD

Criminal Practice

1 Citers


 
Regina v Reid; Regina v Riches; Regina v West; Regina v Cyrus; Regina v Copeland; Regina v Blankson Times, 12 November 2001
31 Jul 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Criminal Practice
The practice of the Crown Prosecution Service obtaining psychiatric reports on a defendant in all murder cases should be discontinued. If the defence wished to raise or consider in a murder case an issue in relation to the defendant's mental state there was or should not be any difficulty in obtaining a psychiatrist's report, usually at public expense, and similarly the Crown would have opportunity if necessary.

 
Saxon, Regina (on the Application of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] EWCA Civ 1384
31 Aug 2001
CA

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majesty's Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 1)
17 Sep 2001
HCJ
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Criminal Practice, Media
The defendant complained that the publicity preceding his trial for a notorious murder would prejudice his right to a fair trial, and sought an order under the 1981 Act to delay any further publicity until after the trial, partcularly where previous publicity had been inaccurate. Held: The question for the court was whether "a fair and accurate report of" the present trial "held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith" would create "a substantial risk of prejudice in the administration of justice in" these "proceedings". It would not.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ]
 
Her Majesty's Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 3)
26 Sep 2001
HCJ
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Criminal Practice
The crown sought to introduce a written statement of a deceased witness at the trial of the panel. He objected raising a devolution issue. Held: The statement would have been admissible if the witness had been alive.
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 259
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ]
 
Her Majesty's Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 4)
3 Oct 2001
HCJ
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Criminal Practice

1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Regina (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions, and Another, Medical Ethics Alliance and Others, interveners Times, 23 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 788
18 Oct 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Tuckey, Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice Silber
Criminal Practice, Constitutional, Human Rights
The function of the Director's office is statutory, and his powers are those laid down. He is not able to excuse possible criminal conduct in advance, and nor could he establish a policy of not applying certain statutory provisions. The Suicide Act could not be re-interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act to protect a right of life. There is a direct conflict between the right of life, and the right to protect a body. The Convention protects life and the dignity of life, but does not protect any right to procure one's own death or confer a right to die. The right to the dignity of life was not a right to die with dignity, but rather a right to live, with as much dignity as could possibly be afforded, until that life reached its natural end.
Suicide Act 1961 2(1) 2(4)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Abacha, Bagudu v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Federal Republic of Nigeria Interested Party [2001] EWHC Admin 787
18 Oct 2001
QBD
The Right Honourable Lord Justice TuckeyCriminal Practice, Human Rights
Attempts were being made by the Federal Government of Nigeria to recover moneys alleged to have been taken fraudulently from the state. They sought assistance from the UK, and the claimants sought details of that request. The statute provided that assistance should be confidential. The claimants asserted that since the fact of the request had been made public, the contents should be also in order to remedy a procedural unfairness. The request complied with the statutory requirements, and had to be accepted. No criminal proceedings were to follow. The court rejected the assertion of unfairness. It was important not to allow international requests of this nature not to be abused, but there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to seek any undertaking as to the use of material obtained, and any question of abuse was for the courts of the country concerned.
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2000; HL 25-Oct-2001 - Times, 29 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 53; [2001] 1 WLR 2060; [2001] 4 All ER 897; [2002] 1 Cr App R 29; [2002] UKHRR 333; [2002] HRLR 8
 
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 ]
 
Gough, Regina v [2001] EWCA Crim 2545; [2002] Crim LR 526; [2002] 2 Cr App R 8
8 Nov 2001
CACD
Kennedy LJ VP QB, Poole, David Steele JJ
Criminal Practice
Appeal against conviction for burglary: "The appeal is concerned only with the directions given to the jury as to the inferences which they might draw after the appellant absconded during the course of his trial." Held: The direction was faulty, but the evidence was strong and there had been no miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(2)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Gough (Stephen) Times, 19 November 2001
8 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Poole and Mr Justice David Steel
Evidence, Criminal Practice
Where a defendant absconded and failed to give evidence, it was not right for the judge to direct the jury that his failure to give evidence because of his absconding allowed the drawing of adverse inferences. Before such an inference could be drawn, the defendant had to have the consequences of his failure to give evidence explained to him, and that would not have been done in the case of an absconder. That warning was mandatory.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(2)


 
 Cantabrica Coach Holdings Limited v Vehicle Inspectorate (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division); HL 22-Nov-2001 - Times, 28 November 2001; Gazette, 24 January 2002; [2001] UKHL 60; [2002] RTR 8; [2001] 1 WLR 2288; [2002] 1 All ER 595; (2002) 166 JPN 550; (2002) 166 JP 423
 
Regina v Andrew Daly [2001] EWCA Crim 2643; [2002] 2 Cr App R 14
23 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell, And, Mr Justice Cooke
Criminal Practice
CS Kennedy LJ: "we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to rely to explain the silence at interview, despite the form of the caution administered to him. [Sc Secondly,] At that stage he had not seen the video film, he was therefore unaware of the full weight of the prosecution case against him and in the light of his solicitor's advice he may have been understandably reluctant to admit a lesser but still serious offence. That made it particularly important in this case for the judge to say to the jury that they should only be prepared to draw an adverse inference if satisfied that the only sensible explanation for the appellant's failure to give in interview the explanation which he gave in his defence statement and at trial was that at the time of the interview he had no answer to the charge, or none that would stand up to questioning and investigation. It was important that the jury not be left at liberty to draw an adverse inference notwithstanding that it might have been satisfied with the plausibility of the appellant's explanation for his silence (see Condron v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1 at paragraph 61 and R. v. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 251, at paragraph 48)."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Gowland-Wynn Times, 07 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 2715; [2002] 1 Cr App Rep 41; [2002] Crim LR 211
26 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Gage and Mr Justice Thomas
Criminal Practice
Where during a police interview, the defendant had maintained silence without stating facts which went to the heart of his defence, it was proper for the judge to refer to the section which would allow the jury to make proper inferences from that silence. The judge should consider carefully the model direction provided by the Judicial Studies Board, and if usually discuss the form of direction with counsel for both defence and prosecution. It remained the case that the burden of proof lay on the Crown throughout.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Times, 17 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 968; [2002] QB 1169
27 Nov 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Tomlinson
Criminal Practice, Health
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be construed restrictively, and it was not to be applied where all that was involved was possible inconvenience for the court and distress for the detainee. The court has power to quash an order made by the Crown court where it is made without jurisdiction and there is no alternative remedy. The word "inappropriate" must be construed restrictively: "A high degree of disablement or relevant disorder must be present. The section does not apply in a situation in which all that is involved is possible inconvenience for the court and inevitable distress for the defendant and others likely to be concerned in a trial, if a trial is held."
Mental Health Act 1983 51
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Poole Times, 11 December 2001
27 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Judge, Mrs Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Criminal Practice
The defendant changed her not guilty plea to one of guilty during her trial. The jury was discharged, but no formal verdict was asked of them. On the following day, the defendant sought to vacate her guilty plea. The judge refused and a verdict of guilty stood. She appealed suggesting that the plea was a nullity. Held: There was no principle of law which would support the suggestion that the verdict is a nullity without a jury verdict.


 
 Regina v Kansal (2); HL 29-Nov-2001 - Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] UKHL 62; [2001] 3 WLR 1562; [2002] 2 AC 69; [2002] 1 All ER 257; [2002] HRLR 9; [2002] BPIR 370; [2002] 1 Cr App R 36; [2002] UKHRR 169
 
Regina v Pearce Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2834; [2002] 1 Cr App R 39; [2002] 1 WLR 1553
11 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hughes, And, Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Criminal Practice, Evidence, Human Rights
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be treated as equivalent to that of a wife, making her evidence admissible but not compellable. Held: As to the admission of evidence, that this was within the area of discretion allowed to convention states, and was a proper balance between the need for respect for family life, and the wider needs of the community. As to the alcohol abuse, there was no evidence of it having reached such a stage as to affect his control over how much he drank. The conviction stood.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 80(1) - Homicide Act 1957 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re P [2001] EWCA Civ 1987
12 Dec 2001
CA
Laws LJ
Criminal Practice
Renewed application for permission to appeal against refusal of certificate of inadequacy.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Pendleton; HL 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 18 December 2001; Gazette, 14 February 2002; [2001] UKHL 66; [2002] 1 WLR 72; [2002] 1 Cr App R 34; [2002] 1 All ER 524

 
 CG v The United Kingdom; ECHR 19-Dec-2001 - Times, 04 January 2002; 43373/98; [2002] 34 EHRR 31; [2001] ECHR 861; [2001] ECHR 870
 
Regina (Hart) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court Times, 17 January 2002
19 Dec 2001
QBD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Ouseley
Criminal Practice
The defendant to extradition proceedings had breached her bail by going on holiday. She had been arrested and sent to the extraditing country which had in turn withdrawn the extradition request to the UK. Held: The surety could not be forfeited under the section merely for the breach of the bail condition by a defendant. The test was whether she turned up at court. The whole purpose of the machinery of those provisions was to ensure that the accused was returned to the requesting state. That purpose had been achieved. The words "or if the fugitive is directed to surrender to this or any other court in relation to these proceedings" should be added to the wording of standard recognisance orders in extradition committal proceedings.
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 120 - Extradition Act 1989 9(8)

 
Mills and Another v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] EWHC Admin 1153
20 Dec 2001
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
PS v Germany (2001) 36 EHRR 1139; [2001] ECHR 875; 33900/96; [2001] ECHR 884
20 Dec 2001
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child's mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly after the offence. The daughter was not available to be questioned by the Court or on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the Regional Court ordered a psychological assessment of the daughter's credibility. The expert reported that her statements were credible. Her parents refused to bring her to the Appeal Court for questioning. The appeal was dismissed. Held: These procedures could not "be considered as having enabled the defence to challenge the evidence of (the daughter), reported in Court by third persons, one of them a close relative" and accordingly held that there had been a violation of article 6: "All the evidence must normally be produced at a public hearing, in the presence of the accused, with a view to adversarial argument. There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence. As a general rule, the accused must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage".
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders; CACD 21-Dec-2001 - Times, 01 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2860
 
Hughes and Others v HM Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 1102
21 Dec 2001
Admn
Mr Justice Hooper
Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
The applicants had either been acquitted of drugs trafficking offences, or were third parties. In each case, property had been taken into receivership, and orders had been made for the receivers to take their costs from the assets taken. The proprietors appealed that part of the orders. Held: The receiver is an officer of the court, not an agent of the parties. He may not use an unconvicted defendant’s assets to meet the costs of the receivership. Human Rights law would in any event have interfered. Depriving an unconvicted defendant or a third party of his share of lawfully obtained assets to pay the costs of receivership is a disproportionate measure and a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 1A 77(8)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.