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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 83 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v Scott Thomas [2002] EWCA Crim 1308
2002
CACD

Criminal Practice

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984
1 Citers


 
Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office [2002] EWCA 3023
2002
Admn
Lord Woolf CJ
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written application for warrants. Held: The court considered the statutory requirements applicable to such warrants, and the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act. The starting point was said to be sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act. Lord Woolf CJ assumed without finally deciding that "all the requirements of sections 15 and 16 have to be complied with if a warrant is to protect a search and the seizure of goods within premises to which it relates". As to section 2 of the 1987 Act: "The structure of section 2 is clear. It is intended that the powers that are given to the Director under subsection (3) should be used to obtain documents, if it is appropriate to do so, and it is only in cases that do not lend themselves to being dealt with under subsection (3) that the powers contained in subsections (4) and (5), which were those used here by the SFO, in entering the premises in question, can be used." The hard drive of a computer would be "a document" and, which it is true that section 2(18) defined "document" in broad terms.
The court accepted a submission that Article 8 of the European Convention had to be taken into account when considering sections 15 and 16 of the 1984 Act, and section 2 of the 1987 Act: "In what I have said so far I have had fully in mind the fact that on any showing there is an intrusion into the protection provided by Article 8(1) where searches of the sort that took place in this case, and the removal of material as happened here, occur. However, Article 8(1) does not stand by itself; it stands subject to Article 8(2). It is my view that in drawing the legislation contained in PACE in the terms that it has, parliament is endeavouring to give statutory effect to the same principles which Article 8 is designed to protect .. The need to consider Article 8 only arises if sections 15 and 16 do not provide sufficient protection in themselves. In my judgment they do. Article 8 in a case of this sort does not add anything to what has been the position hitherto."
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16 - Criminal Justice Act 1987 2 - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers



 
 Consolidated Practice Direction; LCJ 2002 - [2002] 3 All ER 938; [2002] 1 WLR 2870
 
Regina v Copeland [2002] EWCA Crim 736; [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 512
2002
CACD

Criminal Practice
The court considered the necessary of any postponment of a dermination of a confiscation order. Held: The court rejected the contention that the postponement order must specify the period of postponement. It was pointed out that the word used by the statute was "may", not "must": "there is no mention there of 'must': no mandatory provision. If it had been thought desirable then the statute could have been worded in words such as "for such period as the court shall specify."
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Hakala; CACD 2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 730; [2002] Crim LR 578
 
Regina v Shaw [2002] EWCA Crim 3004
2002
CACD

Criminal Practice
Discussions between witnesses should not take place, and the statements and proofs of one witness should not be disclosed to any other witness.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Evans and Lord [2002] EWCA 2304 Admin
2002
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy
Criminal Practice
The United States, in connection with the investigation of an alleged fraud, sought the assistance of the Secretary of State to obtain evidence and information from members of an English firm of accountants, who were not themselves under suspicion. The matter was referred to the Director and the solicitors for the accountants sought access to the letter of request. Access was refused, on the basis that it was by treaty a confidential document, but the Director went on to provide detailed information as to the American investigation, based on the letter of request. Held: Lord Justice Kennedy: "Having regard to the treaty obligations it is right to start from the position that the letter of request is not a disclosable document, but justice must be done to those who are the subject of a section 2 notice pursuant to a letter of request and the consequential request from the Secretary of State to the Director of the SFO pursuant to section 4(2A) of the Act. The needs of justice can normally be met, as in this case, if when a request is made for disclosure of the letter of request information is given as to the nature of the criminal investigation, but in some cases the requirements of justice may require more."
1 Citers


 
Regina (P) v Barking Magistrates Court [2002] EWHA Admin 734
2002
Admn
Wright J
Criminal Practice
P, a 16 year old boy with learning difficulties faced charges. A psychologist said his IQ was so low (52) that P would not be able to understand or reply rationally to the charges. The justices decided that he was fit to plead; they had formed a view of him from watching him during the proceedings so far, in which he had taken no active part. P sought judicial review. Held: The procedure adopted was 'entirely inappropriate'.
Wright J: "The procedure for dealing with matters of this kind in the magistrates court is specifically provided for by a combination of s.37(3) of the Mental Health 1983 when read in conjunction with the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 w.11(1). Under the 2000 Act s.11(1), if on the trial at a magistrates court of an offence punishable on summary conviction punishable with imprisonment, the court
(a) is satisfied the accused did the act or made the omission charged, but
(b) is of the opinion that an enquiry ought to be made into his physical or mental condition, before the method of dealing with him is determined, the court shall adjourn the case to enable a medical examination and report to be made, and shall remand him.
Under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37(3), where a person is charged before a magistrates court with any act or omission as an offence, and the court would have power on convicting him of that offence to make a Hospital Order or Guardianship Order under (1) above, in his case as being a person suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment, then if the court is satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged, the court may if it thinks fit, make such an order without convicting him.
It will be seen that these two provisions provide a complete statutory framework for a determination by the magistrates' court of all the issues that arise in cases of defendants who are or may be mentally ill or suffering from severe mental impairment in the context of offences that are triable summarily only. . . . It will be also be noted that the criteria for exercising the powers vested in the magistrates court under section 37(3) are considerably less strict and more flexible than the common law rules governing the issue of fitness to plead in the Crown Court. . . would have thought that the proper course is . . . to remit the matter to the Barking youth court to be reconsidered . . .in accordance with the machinery provided by the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 -- that is to say first to determine whether P did the acts alleged against him, and if so, whether the case is one for an order under section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983."
Mental Health Act 1983 37(3) - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
1 Citers


 
ex parte HTV Cymru (Wales) Ltd [2002] EMLR 11; [2002] EMLR 184
2002

Aikens J
Media, Criminal Practice
The court granted an injunction to restrain the media from interviewing witnesses during the course of a criminal trial, and until all the evidence was complete. One witness would have to be recalled, and others might be recalled, and accordingly held that the proposed interviews would constitute a contempt of court pursuant to ss.1 and 2 of the 1981 Act.
Aikens J said: "Of course the power of the Crown Court to grant injunctions is strictly limited to the specific matters that are set out in section 45(4). There is no general power in the Crown Court to grant injunctions. But I am satisfied that the Crown Court has the power to grant an injunction to restrain a threatened contempt of court in relation to a matter that is before the Crown Court in question."
Supreme Court Act 198145(4) - Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2
1 Citers



 
 In Re Glatt; Admn 2002 - [2002] EWHC 2495 (Admin)
 
Regina v Palmer [2002] EWCA Crim 2675
2002
CACD

Criminal Practice
The Crown applied to be allowed to withdraw its abandonment of an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Held: The court had jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity, that is to say where "the mind of the applicant did not go with his act of abandonment".
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Chandler; CACD 2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 3167
 
Government of the United States of America v Barnette and another [2002] EWHC 1113 (Admin)
2002
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Criminal Practice
The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had not been allowed to defend the claim. Held: If the United States had been a party to the Convention, Article 6 would have required the Court of Appeal to consider the appellant's appeal on the merits.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v B; CACD 2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 3020
 
Regina v Pearce [2002] 1 CAR 39
2002
CACD

Criminal Practice
An unmarried partner in a long-term relationship with the accused was a compellable witness against him even though, had they been married, she would not have been. The statutory provisions applied to husband and wife and no one else.
Police and Criminal Evidence 1984
1 Citers


 
Regina v Offield [2002] EWCA Crim 1630
2002
CACD
Judge LJ, nHunt J and Keith J
Criminal Practice
The court considered as an additional ground allowing the withdrawal of an abandonment of an appeal: "bad advice given by some legal advisor which has resulted in an unintended, ill considered decision to abandon the appeal".
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Dolan; CACD 2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 1859
 
Regina (Hale) v Southport Justices Times, 29 January 2002
14 Jan 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Costs, Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The applicant had been awarded the costs of his defence by the magistrates, but the bill was halved on assessment, on the basis that an agreement to engage a solicitor of more than four years admission to defend a charge of assault and battery, and to pay him on an hourly rate was unreasonable. He appealed. Held: The clerk had misread the test in the section. It was not whether a less experienced solicitor would have been reasonably sufficient. The test was directed not to the choice of solicitor, but to the remuneration claimed. It was reasonable to agree to pay a solicitor on a flat hourly rate when charging practices at that time were in a transition period, and fees for advice prior to the actual charge were also within the section.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 16(6)

 
Andreas Kanaris v Governor of H M P Pentonville [2002] EWHC 109 (Admin)
17 Jan 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Criminal Practice
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the custody time limits in his matter had expired before his trial began. An application to extend the limits had to be made before the limit, and had to show proper conduct of the case. For serious fraud cases, such as this, the trial was deemed to have begun at the time of the preparatory hearing. That preparatory hearing had been conducted informally, and in the absence of this defendant. Could a preparatory hearing take place for some defendants, but not others, and was it still a preparatory hearing, if it was only in name? Held: The regulations did not envisage preparatory hearings against only one of the defendants on an indictment. It was for the judge to decide if a preparatory hearing was warranted. If so, there was to be one preparatory hearing, which might be adjourned on more than one occasion. Nevertheless the hearing in issue was not a preparatory hearing, and the custody time limits had been spent.
It was not acceptable that the hearing at which so little was achieved should have the result of depriving the respondent of his liberty for the many months that were going to elapse before his trial was heard. After concluding that it was a fiction, and in his view an impermissible fiction, to say that the preparatory hearing began on that date, he made these observations: "It might be said that the applicant is exploiting a technical argument when it is clear that those involved in the proceedings regarded the preparatory hearing as begun against him and the custody time limit protected. And it might well be that in this case the prosecution could have justified an application to extend the time limit: indeed, although I have not heard argument on the point, there is every indication that, if the Crown had sought an extension of the custody time limits the defendants would have had difficulty in resisting it. However the fact remains that, although Mrs Radford fired a warning shot on 5 October 2001 when the prosecution could still have applied for an extension of the limit, no application was made. The custody time limits rules are an important safeguard for accused persons and demand that prosecutors and the court consider with care whether prolonged detention before trial is properly justified. This is witnessed by the narrow view the courts have taken of what constitutes 'good and sufficient cause' to extend custody time limits. It is not an answer to an accused entitled to his liberty after the limit has expired that his argument is a technical one."
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22 - Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 5(6B)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 28 December 2000; Times, 28 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] UKHL 2; [2002] 2 WLR 235; [2002] 1 All ER 815; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 71; [2002] HRLR 20; [2002] 2 Cr App R 3
24 Jan 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came before the court. The confiscation process had to be looked at as against both limbs of article 6. Having reversed the burden of proof, the provision must look at both in the light of article 6 and also against and in deference to the policy which the legislature considered was in the public interest. The provisions of the Human Rights Act were not retrospective.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 4(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Lea (Attorney-General's Reference No 82 of 2000); Regina v Shatwell Times, 28 February 2002
28 Jan 2002
CACD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Pitchford
Criminal Practice, Legal Aid, Criminal Sentencing
The defendants had been tried in cases where the prosecution had employed leading counsel. The defendants had been refused similar representation. They complained that this created an inequality of arms, and an unfair trial under Human Rights law. The question also arose as to the maximum sentence allowable after a re-trial ordered by the Court of Appeal. Held: There was no interference with the right to a fair trial. The defendant had been properly and competently represented. As to sentence, the defendant had been first convicted, and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The conviction was set aside and a re-trial ordered. The Act said that no greater sentence could be imposed on a second trial than on the first, but the Crown appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. Though cumbersome, the right procedure was for the Crown to make such an appeal on the first conviction. That could be heard before the appeal against conviction. The position on any subsequent trial would then be safeguarded.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 36

 
Dyer v Watson and Burrows Times, 04 February 2002; (DRA Nos 1 and 2 of 2001); 2002 SLT 229; [2004] 1 AC 379; [2002] UKPC D1
29 Jan 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Criminal Practice, Scotland, Crime, Human Rights
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay. Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing rights, which could be broken notwithstanding absence of effect on the fairness of the trial. The threshold for delay was high, but once established the court must look at the particular case, referring to the complexity of the case, contributions to the delay by the defendant and by the prosecution. Shortage of facilities for prosecutors was not to be accepted as a valid reason for delay. Neither defendant was held in custody. In one case, police officers complained of a twenty month delay. That was not sufficient to breach their rights. A youth complained of a twenty seven month delay. He was still only sixteen at the date of trial This delay did infringe his rights. When examining the reasonable time provisions for children, the court must also look to obligations under the UN Convention.
(The High Court of Justiciary) During a trial, the appellant police officers gave evidence which the sheriff openly said appeared to him to be perjured. The officers complained that the delay in prosecution was a devolution issue, and an infringement of their rights to a speedy trial. The second case involved a delayed case involving investigation of allegations of child sex abuse by a youth. Held: The delay from April 1998 to January 1999 had to be looked at in the context of the simplicity of the case against the officers and the need for prosecutions of police officers to be given priority. In JK's case the prosecution was required to proceed within a year and had failed to do so. The procedural law of Scotland is distinctive in including stringent rules to avoid delay in criminal proceedings, but the statutory rules do not apply to summary proceedings. The reasonable detention and reasonable time requirements confer important rights on the individual, and they should not be watered down or weakened, but the rights do not exist in a vacuum. The convention is concerned not with departures from the ideal, but with infringements of basic human rights. In the police officers' case a delay of twenty months was not enough of itself to be such an infringement. The prosecutors appeal against the action being struck out was upheld. In JKs case as a child it was important that proceedings be speedy. In this case an overall delay of up to 28 months was in the absence of proper explanation from the crown, unreasonable.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Justice - European Convention on Human Rights - Scotland Act 1998 6 - Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 65(1) - United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Regina (D) v Camberwell Green Youth Court; Regina (N) v Same etc Times, 13 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 227 (Admin)
4 Feb 2002
Admn

Evidence, Human Rights, Children, Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Evidence
Defendants appealed orders allowing children to give evidence by video link, and children appealed orders requiring them to attend court to give evidence. Held: The right to a fair trial had to be interpreted broadly. Special measures taken to protect children did not infringe the Article 6 rights of defendants. The rules allowed safeguards to protect the fairness of the trial. The magistrates needed to approach the article differently.
European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Marrin Times, 05 March 2002
4 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Gage and Judge Stevens, QC
Evidence, Criminal Practice
In order to assist in making the volunteers on the ID parade more greatly resemble the defendant, the police had used make-up to look as if they had stubble. The defendant appealed his conviction following the admission of that evidence. Held: The police were correct to take reasonable steps to make the volunteers resemble the defendant. They were bound by the Code of Practice, but the code was silent on the point. Such a procedure, adopted in good faith and not objected to, led to no unfairness. It would, however, be sensible to keep a record of those to whom such make-up was applied.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 66


 
 Mason, Wood, McClelland, Tierney v Regina; CACD 13-Feb-2002 - Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 385; [2002] 2 Crim App R 38

 
 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (2000-2002); ICJ 14-Feb-2002 - [2002] ICJ Rep 3

 
 Regina v Regan; 14-Feb-2002 - 2002 SCC 12; [2002] 1 SCR 297; 201 NSR (2d) 63; 209 DLR (4th) 41; 161 CCC (3d) 97; 49 CR (5th) 1
 
Regina v Nolan [2002] EWCA Crim 464
15 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Longmore Mr Justice Gibbs And The Recorder Of Leeds
Criminal Practice, Evidence, Police
The defendant was accused of murder. He had been identified by a witness who knew him, but the witness himself was murdered before the trial. The court allowed the prosecutor to read the deceased witness' statement. Another witness for whom an ID parade had been held had only seen the defendant from the rear, but the defence were not informed of this before the parade. Held: The scheme of the code required an identification parade if identification was disputed, but it was also required before a parade that the officer believed it would be useful, and the suspect consented. There could be no requirement to inform a suspect of the angle from which the suspect had been seen. The consent was not as to the identification, but the process of the parade, and therefore it did not affect the fairness of introducing the evidence. As to the admission of the evidence of the deceased witness, it was more than a fleeting glimpse, and no counsel would wish to cross examine such a witness in great depth. The conviction was safe.
Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers (Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 26
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Delroy Samuel Denton [2002] EWCA Crim 272
15 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Bennett, And, Mr Justice Mccombe
Criminal Practice, Police
The appellant was an illegal immigrant from Jamaica. He had been acting as a police informer. He came to be convicted of murder. He complained that his lawyers had not been told of his role, and the information he had supplied to the police about a relative of a prosecution witness, giving her a motive to lie. During intervals of the investigation process he was also in contact with his police handlers. There was a suggestion that an earlier discontinuance had been at the instigation of another police branch. The crown argued there could be no duty on the prosecution to disclose to the defence matters within the defendant's own knowledge. Held: The duty of disclosure is now as set out in the 1996 Act. However the evidence even without this witness, whose evidence had in any event largely been discredited, remained overwhelming. Appeal dismissed.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 3
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Quinland v Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh [2002] EWCA Civ 174
19 Feb 2002
CA

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Jones (Anthony William); HL 20-Feb-2002 - Times, 21 February 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002; [2002] 2 All ER 113; [2002] UKHL 6; [2003] 1 AC 1; [2002] 2 WLR 524; [2002] HRLR 23; [2002] 2 Cr App R 9; (2002) 166 JPN 431; (2002) 166 JP 333
 
Ziegler v Switzerland 33499/96; [2002] ECHR 152
21 Feb 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Mauricia Times, 11 March 2002; Gazette, 28 March 2002
25 Feb 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Johnson and Judge Rhys Davies, QC
Evidence, Criminal Practice
The defendant sought to assert that he was of previous good character. The prosecution knew of convictions abroad, and sought to admit them in rebuttal. The 1984 Act did not deal with foreign convictions. Held: The 1851 Act still applied, and appropriately certified evidence of foreign convictions could be admitted. Police fingerprint evidence was also admitted to establish the identity of the person convicted abroad.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 73 - Evidence Act 1851 7
1 Cites


 
Director of Public Prosecutions v Robertson Times, 13 March 2002; Gazette, 11 April 2002
4 Mar 2002
QBD

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic, Police
The motorist had been stopped. He had not failed the roadside breathalyzer test, but the officer continued and arrested him. He was acquitted. The prosecutor appealed. Held: The use of the section 6 breathalyzer procedure did not exclude the officer relying on the powers contained in section 4 of the Act. Where the officer believed an offence had been committed, he did have power to use that section. Accordingly the arrest was lawful, and the evidence subsequently acquired should not have been excluded.
Road Traffic Act 1988 4 6 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78(1)

 
Monks v East Northamptonshire District Council Times, 15 March 2002
8 Mar 2002
QBD
Justice Silber
Local Government, Criminal Practice
The appellant claimed that a prosecution under the 1990 Act could not be made by the Local Authority in its own name, but should rather have been in the name of a nominated official. Held: The 1972 Act gave the authority. It had not been intended to make a distinction between a local authority's powers in this respect as between civil and criminal proceedings.
Food Safety Act 1990 - Local Government Act 1972 222

 
Michael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina (Appeal No 14 of 2001)
18 Mar 2002
PC

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence. Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no case to answer before the jury. This was incorrect. The court of appeal had applied the proviso to maintain the convictions, and an appellate court should be careful before overturning such a decision, but the Board could not say that the defendants would inevitably have been convicted. The convictions were overturned.
1 Cites

[ PC ]
 
Regina (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire; Regina (Marper) v Same Times, 04 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 478 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 3223
22 Mar 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Leveson
Criminal Practice, Police, Human Rights
The police authority took samples of DNA and fingerprints from the claimants whilst under arrest. After their cases had been dismissed or failed, they requested destruction of the samples and records. Held: There was no engagement of the applicants' art 8 rights to privacy. Even if there was, the keeping of the records would be justified under art 8.2. The new section of the 1984 Act was clear, and anyone would know what would happen with samples and fingerprints taken; they would be retained in the absence of special reason otherwise. The provision was 'necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime' and was proportionate.
European Convention on Human Rights 8.1 8.2 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(1A) - Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 82
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Birutis And Others v Lithuania 48115/99; 47698/99; [2002] ECHR 350; [2002] ECHR 349
28 Mar 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The court considered the conviction of the applicant on the basis of anonymous statements which were not tested by examination at trial. Held: The Court criticised the means adopted by the authorities "in handling the anonymous evidence".
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Palmer Times, 18 April 2002
10 Apr 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice McKinnon and Mr Justice Poole
Criminal Practice
At his trial the judge had added another defendant to the indictment, on the basis that the indictment was defective under the Act. The defendant appealed his conviction. Held: The word "defective" when used within the section included the idea of "lack" or "want", and such an amendment was permissible where no injustice would be created.
Indictments Act 1915 5(1)

 
In re Jackson [2002] EWCA Civ 562
15 Apr 2002
CA

VAT, Criminal Practice
Appeal against an order refusing to vary a restraint and disclosure order made under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by the deletion of a paragraph from it. The restraint order was made in the usual form on application and undertakings by HM Customs and Excise, on the basis that the appellant was involved in laundering proceeds of crime, more particularly, substantial VAT fraud.
Criminal Justice Act 1988
[ Bailii ]

 
 Randall v The Queen; PC 16-Apr-2002 - Times, 24 April 2002; [2002] UKPC 19; (Appeal No 22 of 2001); [2002] 1 WLR 2237; [2002] 2 Crim App R 267
 
P (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Barking Youth Court [2002] EWHC 734 (Admin); [2002] MHLR 304; [2002] 2 Cr App R 19; [2002] Crim LR 657; (2002) 166 JP 641
17 Apr 2002
Admn
Wright J
Criminal Practice, Children
Application for judicial review of decision that a child, P, was fit to stand trial on accusations of offences under the 1971 and 1997 Acts.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - Criminal Damage Act 1971 - Youth Courts (Constitution) Rules1954
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Applications of Salubi and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates Court Times, 04 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin); [2002] 2 Cr App R 40
10 May 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Gage
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
The several applicants had been accused of offences under which the cases were to be transferred direct to the Crown Court for trial. The charges were later amended, with alternative offences preferred for which similar procedures might be and were applied. The defendants challenged the application of the new procedures other than to the initial charges. Two offences had been committed before the Act. Held: Proceedings against a defendant did not become proceedings in respect of a new charge as a result of prosecutorial substitution. The substituted cases were therefore properly dealt with under the new procedure. The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v James Hanratty (Deceased) Times, 16 May 2002; Gazette, 13 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 1141; [2002] 2 Cr App R 30; [2002] 3 All ER 534
10 May 2002
CACD
Mr Justice Leveson
Criminal Practice, Evidence
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected. Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and fresh evidence could be presented by the prosecution, and admitted by the court to achieve that purpose. Though the trial could certainly be criticised by current standards, it had not been at such a level as to make it fundamentally unfair. The court should be careful in expending so much time and money on very old cases.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sullivan, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court at Maidstone Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 922 (Admin)
16 May 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mrs Justice Rafferty
Criminal Practice
The defendant submitted a defence statement under the statutory rules, but refused to sign it. The defence would have incriminated him in respect of other matters. The local court had issued a practice direction requiring defence statements to be signed by the defendant, and the Court of Appeal had also recommended it. The court refused to accept it without his signature, and he challenged that refusal. Held: the jurisdiction with regard to defence statements was entirely statutory, and the statute made no allowance for compulsion. Nevertheless, an unsigned defence statement might be tested by the court to establish that it did represent the defendant's case, and if extra costs were incurred, he or anyone advising him not to sign it, might expect to be asked to pay those costs.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 5
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
T, Regina (on the Application Of) v St Albans Crown Court and others [2002] EWHC 1129 (Admin)
20 May 2002
Admn

Criminal Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1259
27 May 2002
CA
Laws LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Damages, Criminal Practice
Renewed application for leave to appeal against decision refusing compensation after wrongful conviction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Prestatyn Magistrates' Court Gazette, 11 July 2002; Times, 17 October 2002
28 May 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Sedley and Mr Justice Gage
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
The defendants were charged with criminal damage to genetically modified crops in a field. They sought trial by jury but would only have a right to such a trial if the value damaged exceeded pounds 5,000. The crops would not have been made available on the market for sale, and no value was immediately ascertainable. Held: The value was not readily ascertainable, and they represented substantial investment. Accordingly the district judge was correct to treat the value as unascertained and therefore the offence was triable either way.
Magistrates' Court Act 1980 2

 
Regina v Jagdev Times, 04 July 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 3017
31 May 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Potter, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Hedley
Criminal Practice
The court was considering the terms of a confiscation order. It decided to postpone the decision beyond the six month limit. Questions had arisen about the apparent shift of the burden of proof. Two cases were due to be heard by the Court of Appeal which would affect the issue before the court. Held: The anticipation of decisions by a senior court could be an exceptional circumstance where further information was required, and which could justify such an adjournment.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 3
1 Citers


 
Dodds v Regina [2002] EWCA Crim 1328
31 May 2002
CACD
Potter LJ, Rafferty, Hedley JJ
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine. Held: The court set out the minimum requirements for a fair hearing in a case of this kind: "1) The Juror must understand what he is said to have done wrong;
2) The court must be satisfied that the juror when (by act or omission) he did wrong, had the means of knowing that it was wrong;
3) The juror must understand what defences (if any) may be available to him;
4) The juror must have a reasonable opportunity to make any relevant representations he wishes;
5) If necessary the juror must have an opportunity to consider what representations he wishes to make once he has understood the issues involved." In this case it was not clear that the defenedant had known the defence of reasonable cause. He had intensely personal reasons, born of traumatic experience, for fearing a search which involved either a metal wand or human touch. That being so the appeal was allowed.
Juries Act 1974 20 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3) - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 155
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Stephens Times, 27 June 2002
11 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Keene, Mr Justice Davis and Judge John Griffith Williams, QC
Criminal Practice
At trial, the jury had sought assistance from the judge as to how certain they had to be. He replied they had to be at least sure, and explained this was a slightly lower standard than certainty. The defendant appealed. Held: Judges should not seek to make any such distinction. It was unhelpful, and contrary to guidance in Archbold. Appeal dismissed for other reasons.

 
Regina v Crisp Times, 18 June 2002
12 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Longmore, Mr Justice Wright and Judge Hyam
Criminal Practice
The appellant challenged his convictions, including one for escape from lawful custody. He refused to be handcuffed to be transported to the court. Held: The court could proceed to hear an appeal in the absence of a defendant who so refused, and so was not brought to the court. In this case however, he had only been informed of the requirement on the night before, and the appeal would be adjourned for a short period to allow him another opportunity to appear.

 
Fehily and Others v Governor of Wandsworth Prison and Another Times, 18 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1295 (Admin
19 Jun 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Criminal Practice, Prisons
The defendants had been sent direct for trial under the section, being charged with indictable only offences, but the prosecution had failed to serve the necessary evidence and documents within the time limit. No application was made by the prosecution to extend the time limit save by a letter which arrived to late to allow the defendants to apply. The defendants issued a writ of habeas corpus. Held: Nothing in the Act envisaged charges being dismissed for the prosecution's failure. The Act even envisaged a voluntary indictment being issued if charges were dismissed. A judge has the power to extend the time for service after the limit has expired and even though no application had been made by the prosecution within that limit.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
1 Citers


 
W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another [2002] EWHC 1252 (Admin); [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 67; [2002] Crim LR 681; 166 JP 453; (2002) 166 JP 453
25 Jun 2002
Admn
Sedley LJ, Gage J
Magistrates, Criminal Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Wahab Times, 22 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002
26 Jun 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Judge, Mr Justice Astill and Judge Colston, QC
Evidence, Criminal Practice
The defendant's solicitor had advised him whilst at the police station to make a confession. He appealed saying that he should not have been given that advice, and that the evidence should be excluded. Held: A solicitor's role in the police station was not simply to make life difficult for the prosecution, nor to get the client off. Advice given in these circumstances would not normally form a basis for excluding a confession.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76(2)

 
Regina v Steidl and Baxendale-Walker Unreported, 27 June 2002
27 Jun 2002

Judge Wadsworth QC
Criminal Practice
(Southwark Crown Court) The case was a prosecution for serious fraud. In civil proceedings, despite evidence to suggest a powerful case for dishonesty, a High Court judge had concluded that the claimant had failed to establish that the defendant, Baxendale-Walker, was acting dishonestly, or intentionally "driving what he knew to be a dishonest transaction". Held: There was a concern about the effect of conflicting decisions of the High Court and a crminal court. The prosecution should be stayed on the grounds that it was "against the public interest that the criminal case should proceed …in that the necessary effect of such a proceeding would be to re-litigate the issue with a view to achieving a result on the facts inconsistent with the findings of fact already made in a final judgment of the High Court".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) [2002] 1 WLR 2870
8 Jul 2002
CACD

Criminal Practice

1 Citers

[ CS ]

 
 W, Regina (on The Application of) v Southampton Youth Court; Admn 23-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWHC 1640 (Admin); [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 87; (2002) 166 JP 569; [2002] Crim LR 750

 
 Regina v Hall; CACD 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 27 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 1881
 
Mehmet, Regina (on the Application of) v Clerk To the Justice of Miskin, Cynon Valley and Methyr Tydfill Petty Sessional Divisions [2002] EWCA Civ 1248
29 Aug 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke
Costs, Criminal Practice
The applicant sought leave to appeal refusal of a judicial review of the decision of the respondent with regard to the taxation of his costs under a defendant's costs order. The review had been refused as out of time and without merit. Held: The Court of Appeal could not hear an appeal from the High Court in a criminal matter, which would include this matter, and had no jurisdiction to deal with the case before it.
Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kinsella v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 1438
13 Sep 2002
CA
Waller LJ
Criminal Practice
Application for judicial review of refusal by the respondent to refer the claimant's case back to the court.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cuscani v The United Kingdom Times, 11 October 2002; 32771/96; [2002] ECHR 625; 32771/96; [2002] ECHR 630
24 Sep 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-e; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
The claimant had been convicted and sentenced for evading tax. His first language had been Italian, and his grasp of English weak. At one point the court offered him an interpreter, but at his trial, when he pleaded guilty, his counsel allowed the claimant's brother to act as an interpreter, but in fact he spoke little English either, and did no effective translation. The defendant sought to challenge the sentence because it was entered on values which he could now show were much smaller than had been presented. The Criminal Cases Review Commission could not send it back to court because the conviction itself was not unsafe, only the sentencing basis. Held: The trial judge has a duty himself to ensure fairness, and to satisfy himself that any interpreter required was available. He could not leave it to the defendant, because this was a matter of the fairness of the proceedings. The defendant had not had a fair trial.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Grisez -c- Belgique 35776/97; [2002] ECHR 632; (2003) 36 EHRR 854; [2002] ECHR 637
26 Sep 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The court held that "the medical experts did actually cause a certain amount of delay in the conduct of the proceedings," and rejected the complaint under article 5(3): "[T]he delay due to the medical reports, although improper, does not in itself provide a sufficient basis for a finding that there was a violation of article 5(3) of the Convention. The total length of the detention pending trial in this case—two years, three months and nineteen days—does not appear excessive in view of the seriousness of the charges and the number of matters requiring investigation."
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Jones (Paull Garfield) Times, 24 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002
8 Oct 2002
CACD
Kay LJ, Wright, Henriques JJ
Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
The Court of Appeal had ordered the defendant to be re-tried within two months. An initial application for directions was adjourned without the defendant being re-arraigned, and then was adjourned again to a date outside the two month limit. Defence solicitors, knowing the difficulty declined to express a view either way. Held: The arraignment could take place exceptionally outside the two month limit. The duty under the act for the prosecution to act with 'all due expedition' was a more restricted requirement than the one to act with 'due diligence', and there was also a duty on the defence to ensure that effect was given to the order of the Court.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 8(1B)

 
Beckles v The United Kingdom Times, 15 October 2002; 44652/98; (2002) 36 EHRR 162; [2002] ECHR 661
8 Oct 2002
ECHR
Pellonpaa, Bratza, Trdruejo, Palm, Casadevali, Marustem, Paviovschi JJ
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Evidence
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none were put. Held: The right of silence was not absolute, but the right against self-incrimination lay at the heart of the notion of a fair trial. A conviction could not be based solely on inferences drawn from silence, but he could be expected to answer questions, where the situation clearly called for his explanation. In this case, the judge did not give the jury sufficiently clear direction on the accused's explanation of why he had not answered questions, and had undermined that evidence. There had been a violation of his art 6.1 rights. "whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight attached to them by the national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation. Of particular relevance are the terms of the trial judge's direction to the jury on the issue of adverse inferences".
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Chorley Justices Times, 22 October 2002; Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin)
9 Oct 2002
Admn
Latham, McCombe JJ
Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights
The prosecution had requested the magistrates to impose on the defendant as a condition of his bail, a requirement that when so requested by a police officer checking that he was at home and otherwise complying with the bail condition, he should come to door. Held: The 'doorstep' condition was validly imposed. The Act gave the magistrates the power to impose such conditions as appeared to them to be necessary to secure the defendant's appearance at court. The defendant's article 5 and 8 rights were engaged, the procedure was clear, accessible, and proportionate.
Bail Act 1976 3(6) - European Convention on Human Rights 5 8
[ Bailii ]

 
 Kizza Sealey and Marvin Headley v The State; PC 14-Oct-2002 - Times, 05 November 2002; [2002] UKPC 52
 
Regina v Knighton (deceased) Times, 28 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2227
17 Oct 2002
CACD
Judge, Butterfield, McCombe LLJ
Criminal Practice
The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred a conviction for murder made in 1927. Held: The Commission, and the court were to look for cases where the conviction was unsafe, for whatever reason. It was not part of that reasoning to take account of the fact that it had been a capital case. There was nothing here to undermine the safety of the verdict.
[ Bailii ]
 
Taylor-Sabori v The United Kingdom Times, 31 October 2002; 47114/99; [2002] ECHR 686
22 Oct 2002
ECHR
J-P Cost, Bratza, Loucaides, Birsan, Jungwiert, Butkevych, Thomassen
Human Rights, Evidence, Criminal Practice
The applicant had been convicted of serious criminal offences. There were admitted into evidence intercepts of messages to his pager. He complained that this infringed his right to respect for his private correspondence. Held: The pager messages were correspondence. The UK legislation covering interception of correspondence did not apply to such materials, and accordingly any interception was not under a regime which was 'in accordance with law' as required, and infringed his rights.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Evans and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Times, 15 November 2002; Gazette, 21 November 2002
23 Oct 2002
QBD
Kennedy, Pitchers LLJ
Criminal Practice
The Home Secretary received a request for assistance in a letter of request from a foreign state, and issued orders requiring information from the applicants. They sought access to the letter. Held: The letter of request is confidential and not itself disclosable. However, justice must also be done for the person the subject of the request. Normally, that requirement could be met by disclosing information as to the nature of the criminal investigation. That would suffice here, but would not always be enough.
Criminal Justice Act 1987 2

 
Hopson (Darren) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police Times, 01 November 2002
25 Oct 2002
QBD
Davis J
Criminal Practice
The applicant challenged the imposition of a sex offender's order, on the basis that having been convicted of the last offence, that was the date after which he had to have behaved in such a way as to cause the concern necessary in turn to found an application. Held: The Act required only such behaviour only either after the date of commencement of the Act, or after the most recent conviction. Behaviour occurring after commencement of the Act, but before the last conviction could be used.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 2 3

 
Regina v Duggan Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003
30 Oct 2002
CACD
Rose, Hughes, Royce, LJJ
Criminal Practice
The defendant had pleaded guilty to murder, but subsequently the defence of diminished responsibility would have become available. He appealed. Held: It had previously been recognised that this was a gap in the law, but that gap had not been remedied. A manslaughter verdict could still only be substituted for the verdict of a jury, and not for a guilty plea.
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9

 
Regina v Chenia (Shokat) Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2345; [2003] 2 Cr App R 83
1 Nov 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Clarke, Mr Justice Pitchford and Judge Fabyan Evans
Criminal Practice, Evidence
CS The defendant had made no comment replies during interview. He did not give evidence at trial, but otherwise took part, though he did not put any fact before the jury. The judge directed the jury that they might draw adverse inferences from his silence. He appealed. Held: The facts put forward at trial must include facts put forward by prosecution witnesses. There had been a misdirection, because the judge had failed to direct the jury on the need to be sure there was no innocent explanation of the defendant's silence. However, there was no substantial departure from fairness and the verdict stood. "We can see that there is scope for argument as to whether the mere putting of a fact to a witness in cross-examination would be sufficient to amount to reliance upon it for the purpose of s.34, although we can think of circumstances in which it might be. However, it is not necessary to resolve that question for the purposes of this appeal." and "It would in our view have been desirable for the judge to include a direction of the kind suggested, namely that no question of drawing an adverse inference could arise unless the jury were sure that there was a case to answer. However, we do not think that this trial could possibly be held to be unfair or the conviction unsafe on that ground. That is because no jury could possibly have concluded that there was no case to answer on the facts."
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Pearson) v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Another Times, 18 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2482 (Admin)
6 Nov 2002
QBD
Maurice Kay J
Road Traffic, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The appellant challenged the fact that the details of his conviction for driving with excess alcohol had not been removed from his driving licence despite it being a spent conviction under the 1974 Act. The result was that he had been unable to find work as a driver. Held: The retention of the records was not a breach of the applicant's human right to privacy. The article was not engaged, although he might have considered an action for breach of statutory duty.
The claimant objected to having to effectively disclose a road traffic conviction to a new employer where though it would be spent under the 1974 Act, the 1988 Act required details of it to remain on his driving licence. Held: Article 8 was not engaged. Maurice Kay J spoke of the 1974 Act: 'The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act confers certain privileges . . It does not attempt to go beyond the grant of those limited privileges to provide a right of confidentiality in respect of spent convictions. While the 1974 Act in some respects may place an individual with spent convictions in the same position as someone with no convictions, it does not do so by rendering the convictions confidential; it does so simply by putting in place a regime which protects an individual from being prejudiced by the existence of such convictions. For these reasons I reject the submission that the 1974 Act renders the appellant's convictions confidential."
Road Traffic Act 1988 44(1) 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1974 45(7) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J and B [2002] EWCA Civ 1661
7 Nov 2002
CA

Criminal Practice, Family, Human Rights
The Crown prosecution service sought judicial review of a decision by the registrar of marriages to celebrate the marriage between the parties. He was due to face trial for murder, and she was to give evidence against him. Held: The registrar should be allowed to continue and to celebrate the marriage. It could not be said that the defendant was doing this to attempt to avoid liability for a serious crime. He might do other things also such as calling witnesses. "The right to marry has always been a right recognised by the laws of this country long before the Human Rights Act came into force. The right of course is also enshrined in article 12 of the Convention. It has more recently been held that prisoners are not to be denied that right in the cases cited by the judge. The right, furthermore, must not be denied to B who has indeed born a child to J. It seems to me that the right of marriage carries with it the incidences of marriage, including that the wife may not be compelled to give evidence against her husband or vice versa. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (Commissioners of Customs and Excise) v Canterbury Crown Court and Another; QBD 14-Nov-2002 - Times, 06 December 2002
 
Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2838; [2002] 1 WLR 796; [2003] Crim LR 403; [2003] 1 Cr App Rep 38
22 Nov 2002
CACD
Keene, LJ, Forbes, Rant JJ
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Evidence, Crime
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable. Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary disclosure, where a defence statement might be of assistance to the co-defendants. Actual disclosure remained for the judgement of the prosecution. A court was not under a duty not to admit evidence which might be in whole or in part unreliable. It was necessary to construe legislation to accord with a defendant's human rights, and the statements should have been disclosed.
The defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Two defendants appealed saying that court had been wrong to suggest that a co-defendant's evidence was reliable as regards themselves, but unreliable as regards other witnesses. Mrs Cairns said that she had acted under the marital coercion of the same witness. Held: "The prosecution may properly call a witness when they rely on one part of his evidence but not on another part. Whether they choose to call such a witness is a matter for their discretion . . But that does not amount to an attack on their own witness's credit."
In the light of that the prosecution was entitled to exercise its discretion, as it did. It was not a perverse or unreasonable exercise of discretion and the judge was right not to interfere with it. Nor was the calling Barry Cairns an abuse of process. The court had followed the Makanjuola guidelines, and the appeal on that basis failed.
The judge had exercised a proper discretion in not allowing separate trials.
As to the defence of marital coercion, the judge's direction was incorrect as to the meaning of coercion in not allowing clearly that such coercion may operate without physical violence. Also, following Jespers, the court should have disclosed the defence statements of two of the co-accusd since this would have assisted Mrs Cairns in her defence. Her appeal was allowed, but not that of the co-defendants.
Human Rights Act 1998 3(1) - Criminal Justice Act 1967 17 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78 - Criminal Justice Act 1925 47 - Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 5(5) 7(2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Crown Prosecution Service v Compton, Comptons of Brighton Limited, Coyne, Compton [2002] EWCA Civ 1720
27 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Simon Brown VP
Criminal Practice
Appeal against refusal of restraint order. Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: "All that I think it appropriate on this appeal to add by way of comment on the approach to adopt to the exercise of section 26 powers is that if, on the documents, a good arguable case arises for the treating of particular assets as the realisable property of the defendant - here on the basis that the company's corporate veil should properly be pierced - then the relevant restraint (and possibly receivership) order(s) should ordinarily be made. That essentially is the test for the grant of Mareva relief. So too should it be the test for the exercise of the section 26 powers. It is, of course, open to third parties (or the defendant himself where the order is made without notice) to apply to set it aside."
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland Times, 06 December 2002; [2002] UKPC D3; [2003] 2 WLR 317; 2003 SCCR 19; [2004] 1 AC 462; 2002 GWD 39-1280; 2003 SC (PC) 21; [2003] UKHRR 1; 2003 SLT 4
28 Nov 2002
PC
Steyn, Hope of Craighead, Clyde, Rodger of Earlsferry, Walker of Gestingthorpe LL
Criminal Practice, Scotland, Human Rights
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights. Held: Once it was accepted that the delay took the prosecution outside the defendant's right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, the prosecution must fail. Section 57 simply came into effect. The reasonable time provisions of the convention must be applied throughout the proceedings until they were determined. The Scottish system had accepted rigorous time limits, and they must be applied. This case would reinforce the need for compliance.
Scotland Act 1998 57(2) - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 3) Times, 05 December 2002; Gazette, 06 February 2003; [2003] 1 Cr App R 648
28 Nov 2002
CACD
Buxton LJ, Holman, Astill JJ
Criminal Practice
The appellant was supported in his appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition the appellant sought to permission raise other grounds of appeal. The prosecution asserted that the court could filter the grounds of appeal already rejected by the Commission. Held: The court could take any ground of appeal arising from the original case. An issue of jurisdiction raised in his case and decided against him had now been changed following the Manning case. However s 14(5) was clear, and once a reference had been made, the appellant could raise any issue allowed by that section. This was confirmed by Garner. The law might be better changed.
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 14(5)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Sekhon, etc v Regina; CACD 16-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2003] 1 Cr App R 575; [2003] 1 WLR 1655; [2002] EWCA Crim 2954
 
Regina v Jones Times, 07 February 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2983; [2003] 1 WLR 1590
20 Dec 2002
CACD
Mr Justice Butterfield, Lord Justice Potter, His Honour Judge Paget QC
Criminal Practice
The defendant might have been chaged with an offence under section 6 of the Act, of unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16, but the prosecution would have been outside the time limit of twelve months. Instead he was prosecuted for an offence under section 14 of indecent assault, but based upon the same facts. He now appealed his conviction, saying it was an abuse of process. Held: The prsoecution did not, here, amount to an affront to public conscience. Where the offence did not come to light until after the time limit had expired, and there was some additional aggravating factor, a prosecution for the lesser offence was not wrong, and settled practice was to limit the sentence to what would have been available to the court under section 14.
Sexual Offences Act 1956 6 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of Mullen) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 31 December 2002; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1882; [2003] QB 993; [2003] 2 WLR 835; [2003] QB 993; [2003] 1 All ER 613
20 Dec 2002
CA
Schiemann, Rix, Pumfrey LJJ
Criminal Practice, Administrative
The applicant had been unlawfully taken from Zimbabwe, then tried and sentenced in the UK. His conviction was set aside as unsafe, but he had been refused damages. He appealed. Held: There was no substantial criticism of the trial itself, but the procedure under which he had been taken amounted to an abuse of process. The phrase 'miscarriage of justice' was wide enough to include acts of abuse, and therefore it was appropriate to compensate the applicant. Had Parliament wanted to displace the presumption of innocence, it would have needed to have said so.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 133
1 Cites

1 Citers

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