The contention in this appeal is that the conviction was unsafe because the judge was wrong to give a direction under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Citations: [2008] EWCA Crim 1028 Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Evidence Updated: … Continue reading Maguire, Regina v: CACD 25 Apr 2008
Appeal by case stated against conviction of having secured entry to premises by violence. Inferences to be drawn from defendant’s silence at police interview. The defendant complained that the magstrates should have set out clearly what inferences they had drawn and from what facts and allowed the defendant opportunity to make representations. Held: The magistrates … Continue reading T v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Jul 2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. Held: The appeal failed. The direction as to the no comment interview had allowed … Continue reading Najib v Regina: CACD 12 Feb 2013
Six conditions before jury may take inferences from silence under caution. Citations: Times 19-Dec-1996 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.86057
The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after retirement. Held: Leave to appeal was refused. As to any obligation on the police … Continue reading Regina v Imran, Hussain: CACD 9 Jun 1997
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong enough. At the trial, the defendant adduced the terms of that advice. The questions … Continue reading Regina v Bowden (BT): CACD 10 Feb 1999
A jury cannot convict solely on the basis of an inference, drawn under section 34, from the combination of an accused’s failure to give at interview, an explanation relied upon later at court. Additional evidence could be found not only from the prosecution case, but also from the defence. In a section 35 case however, … Continue reading Regina v Doldur: CACD 7 Dec 1999
D appealed against his conviction of indecently assaulting his young stepdaughter, on whose nightdress a small amount of seminal staining had been found. Giving evidence at trial he was asked by his counsel if he could think of any way in which semen might have found its way onto the nightdress, and he proffered an … Continue reading Regina v Nickolson: CACD 23 Jan 1998
The appellant was convicted of supplying heroin. He and his co-defendant who had pleaded guilty, had been filmed on video. The appellant did not give evidence but contended that it was the other, not he, who had supplied the heroin and received the price. Held: The defence had invited the jury to interpret a poor … Continue reading Regina v Mahmood: CACD 27 Jan 1998
Bowers and Millan complained that the direction given under section 34 was impermissible. The ground of complaint was that they had not relied on any fact by way of defence, but had simply put the prosecution to proof. Held: The court asked what evidence had been presented: ‘A fact relied on may, in our judgment, … Continue reading Regina v Bowers, Taylor, Millan: CACD 13 Mar 1998
The jury may be invited beyond the terms of the Judicial Studies Board direction for drawing of adverse inferences to allow if they consider that delay was attributable to desire to fabricate a defence. Citations: Times 10-Apr-1998 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Evidence Updated: 11 October … Continue reading Regina v Daniel: CACD 10 Apr 1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for wounding with intent. He had answered ‘no comment’ in the police interview, but claimed self defence at trial. The court considered what note should be taken of the solicitor’s evidence of his advice on interview. Held: Rose LJ gave examples of where a solicitor’s advice to remain silent … Continue reading Regina v Roble: CACD 21 Jan 1997
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were displaying withdrawal symptoms; the doctor who examined them had disagreed. Held: The … Continue reading Regina v Condron, Condron: CACD 17 Oct 1996
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 … Continue reading Regina v Chenia: CACD 1 Nov 2002
The defendant had given no answers during his police interview, but instead his solicitor read out a full written statement of his case. At trial, he did not depart from the statement thus provided. He appealed after the judge allowed the jury to make adverse inferences from his silence, on the basis that it had … Continue reading Regina v Knight: CACD 29 Jul 2003
Citations: [2006] EWCA Crim 1716 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Regina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006 The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences … Continue reading Regina v Adetoro: CACD 2006
Application of section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in a case where there are two or more defendants and it is a co-defendant rather than the prosecution which submits that the jury may draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s failure to put forward in police interviews the explanation which … Continue reading Regina v Dellaway and Moriarty: CACD 7 Apr 2000
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn. Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had in fact steered the jury away from drawing adverse inferences, and if properly … Continue reading Regina v Boyle and Another: CACD 25 Aug 2006
The defendant appealed against her conviction for assisting in the disposal of the proceeds of criminal activity, saying that the judge had incorrectly ruled that she had waived legal privilege as to the advice given to her at the police station, and that an inference could be drawn under section 34. Under cross examination she … Continue reading Loizou, Regina v: CACD 14 Jul 2006
The court considered the drawing of adverse inferences form an accused’s silence in the police station when this was under legal advice: ‘The question in the end, it is for the jury, is whether regardless of advice, genuinely given and genuinely accepted, an accused has remained silent not because of that advice but because he … Continue reading Regina v Hoare and Pierce: CACD 2 Apr 2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution. Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a fact relied on in his defence for the purpose of section … Continue reading Regina v Webber: HL 22 Jan 2004
M was convicted of possessing a class A drug with intent to supply. His defence at trial was that W was the dealer and he was merely a purchaser. He had not mentioned this to the police when questioned, on the ground (he said) that he did not want to land W in trouble. The … Continue reading Regina v Mountford: CACD 21 Dec 1998
The court set down the general approach to be taken where a suspect refused to answer questions put during his interview by the police. Judges: Lord Justice Laws Mr Justice Newman Sir Richard Tucker Citations: [2003] EWCA Crim 1, [2003] Crim LR 405 Links: Bailii Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Howell v Regina: CACD 17 Jan 2003
The appellants appealed their convictions on two grounds. First the judge who had heard the case was an acquaintance of the chief constable of the investigating force, and second evidence had been admitted of tape recordings of non-privileged conversations between defendants whilst in the police station. The Chief Constable had authorised the covert operation, and … Continue reading Mason, Wood, McClelland, Tierney v Regina: CACD 13 Feb 2002
The defendant had stayed silence at interview, and later at charge. During the trial, the judge ruled that the failure to answer questions at interview was inadmissible, but left to the jury the possibility of drawing adverse inferences from the silence at charge. He appealed. Held: So long as the fairness of the trial was … Continue reading Regina v Dervish and Another: CACD 12 Dec 2001
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 … Continue reading Regina v Gowland-Wynn: CACD 26 Nov 2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction for serious sexual assaults, saying that the court had wrongly allowed an inference to be drawn from his failure to answer questions during interview. He had at first refused to respond and said that his legal advice had been not to do so being affected by drink. He had … Continue reading Regina v Morgan: CACD 28 Feb 2001
Reader gave a no comment interview and did not testify at trial, because it was common ground that his counsel had done no more than put the prosecution to proof. Held: A setion 34 direction was wrong under these circumstances. Judges: Buxton LJ, Rougier J, The Common Serjeant of London Citations: [1998] EWCA Crim 1226 … Continue reading Regina v Reader, Connor, Hart: CACD 7 Apr 1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the silence. He had been wrong to leave it open to the jury to … Continue reading Regina v McGarry: CACD 16 Jul 1998
D appealed a conviction after direction under s34. Held: The appeal failed. ‘Section 34 is designed, in part at any rate and perhaps principally, to deal with the sort of situation which not infrequently arises where a defence is advanced which has never been previously indicated even though there was sufficient opportunity to do so, … Continue reading Regina v Hearne and Coleman: CACD 4 May 2000
In the police station, the defendant had declined to answer police question, but had instead provided a written statement. Held: The practice had the danger that if, at trial, he discovered that something had been omitted from the statement, an inference might be sought to be drawn under the section. Here the written statement broadly … Continue reading Regina v Turner: CACD 6 Nov 2003
D complained that the judge had relied upon an inference under section 34 when holding that he had a case to answer. Held: The judge was wrong to do so: ‘The sort of circumstances we conceive to which paragraph (c) of subsection (2) [of section 34] applies are, for example, where the defence has involved … Continue reading Regina v Hart and Mclean: CACD 23 Apr 1998
The defendant had when at the police station refused to leave his cell to attend for interview. At trial, the judge said that the jury could take account of this as a failure to mention when questioned, something which he now wished to rely upon. Held: No questioning had taken place, and the inference could … Continue reading Regina v Johnson; Regina v Hind: CACD 11 Apr 2005
s34 is ‘a notorious minefield’. Judges: Dyson LJ Citations: [2003] EWCA Crim 3080[2003] EWCA Crim 3080, Times 15-Dec-2003 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004 The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was … Continue reading Regina v B (K J): CACD 1 Dec 2003
‘The focus of the application is on the judge’s ruling on whether to give a direction under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘a section 34 direction’) in relation to the applicant’s failure to mention in interview that the complainant ‘AB’ had fallen asleep in his car and that he … Continue reading Noor, Regina v: CACD 12 Nov 2021
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said this amounted to an infringement of legal professional privilege. Held: Wilmot was not authority … Continue reading Seaton v Regina: CACD 13 Aug 2010
Adverse inference – no direct questions Appeal from conviction – wrongful use of section 34 of 1994 Act after no comment interview. The defendant argued that no actual questions had been asked. Held: The appeal failed: ‘in order for the section to operate it is necessary that the defendant is being questioned under caution and … Continue reading Green, Regina v: CACD 1 Mar 2019
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of the case against the appellant as they could and should have done. The solicitor’s … Continue reading Regina v Argent: CACD 16 Dec 1996
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 . .
Cases where the jury are to be allowed to draw inferences from silence, are to be limited to the situations as tightly defined under the Act. . .
The court considered an appeal where the jury had been invited to draw an inference from the defendant’s silence at interview that the defendant ‘had not had a chance to prepare his story’ as being its equivalent. Held: The court accepted the inference as proper in the circumstances. Citations: [2003] EWCA Crim 1767 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Ramadan El-Delbi, Regina v: CACD 20 Jun 2003
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might be people never crossed his mind. Setting aside his … Continue reading Commissioner of Police v Caldwell: HL 19 Mar 1981
Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those who were also detained under the MHA by reason of transfer and restriction … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey: CA 29 Jul 1994
The court set out the sentencing considerations for firearms offences in the light of an increase of the use of guns. Held: The level of sentencing had not sufficiently reflected the gravity of such offences. After the 1994 Act, earlier sentencing cases were not reliable as a guide. The applicable principles are: ‘(1) What sort … Continue reading Regina v Avis, T and others: CACD 16 Dec 1997
Guidance was given on the directions to be given to the jury where a co-accused speaks for prosecution as a witness and in sexual assault cases. The full corroboration warning is not now needed; the Judge may use his own discretion, and may give a lesser direction if he chooses. In this case there was … Continue reading Regina v Makanjuola: CACD 17 May 1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court. Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard … Continue reading Regina v Cowan and Another: CACD 12 Oct 1995
The defendant who was aged 16 gave a no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor. At trial he waived privilege and his solicitor gave evidence that he had given him before interview a very similar account of the incident to that which the defendant had himself given the jury at trial. The judge … Continue reading Regina v JO: CACD 9 Jun 2000
D was charged with three co-defendants with conspiring to import cannabis. He gave a largely no comment interview to the interviewing customs officer, but at trial said that the contacts with his co-defendants were innocent. Since this account had not been given in interview, the judge gave a section 34 direction. Held: The appeal failed … Continue reading Regina v Milford: CACD 21 Dec 2000
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35. Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does that the jury must conclude that the only sensible explanation of his failure to give … Continue reading Regina v Becouarn: HL 28 Jul 2005
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in the case of the 1988 Act, of crime. The Crown … Continue reading Regina v Montila and Others: HL 25 Nov 2004
The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard directions to the jury on the drawing of inferences from … Continue reading Regina v Birchall: CACD 20 Jan 1998
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous conviction for another grave offence. Held: The appeal was dismissed. Insofar as the the word … Continue reading O v Crown Court at Harrow: HL 26 Jul 2006
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005
The claimant’s child had died as a result of negligence in hospital. The parents had been told the result of police investigation and decision not to prosecute, and the hospital’s own investigation, but had not been sufficiently involved. There remained unresolved suspicions of negligence having been covered up. They had been refused legal aid to … Continue reading Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 10 Oct 2003
The applicants sought to test the human rights compatibility of the section when applied to gypsies. The travellers sought to stay on land within the district. The local authority used its policy, and agreed to tolerate the encampment for a short time. There was a serious incident with police officers being held temporarily. After refusing … Continue reading Regina (on the Application of Fuller, Wright, Tarr and Booth) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and Another: Admn 12 Dec 2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13The 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 … Continue reading SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment. Held: A discretionary life sentence in English law was composed of a punitive element followed by a security element giving … Continue reading Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Oct 1990
The offence of intimidation does not require the presence of the attacker and the victim together in one place. Citations: Times 02-Apr-1996 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 51(1) Crime Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80034
Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for the inference if that matter is agreed to be true. Citations: … Continue reading Regina v Wisdom and Sinclair: CACD 10 Dec 1999
Citations: [2001] Cr App R 160 Statutes: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Per incuriam – Regina v Gowland-Wynn CACD 26-Nov-2001 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 … Continue reading Regina v Gill: CACD 2001
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the arrangement was so that false benefit claims could be made to … Continue reading Tinsley v Milligan: HL 28 Jun 1993
The prosecutor had appealed immediately against the judge’s withdrawal of a charge of racially aggravated use of insulting words or behaviour. The judge then ignored his obligation to continue the trial without mentioning the issue to the jury. He said in terms that the charge should not have been brought to the Crown Court. The … Continue reading Regina v SH: CACD 3 Aug 2010
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him. Held: The appeal failed (by a majority). The … Continue reading Roberts v Parole Board: HL 7 Jul 2005
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led inquiry had said that a proper investigation was required. A promised inquiry under the 2005 Act was objected … Continue reading Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 27 Feb 2019
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to disclose the warnings given to him violated the same right. Held: The … Continue reading T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: SC 18 Jun 2014
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were accordingly justified in law. Held: The law on … Continue reading Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others: HL 29 Mar 2006
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing from heroin. The judge allowed the jury the option of drawing an adverse inference from … Continue reading Condron v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 2000
Local Council may not Sue in Defamation Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which supported the decision to lay down the … Continue reading Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: HL 18 Feb 1993
The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property. Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take … Continue reading H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding information which would allow it to trade lawfully. The Court was now asked: ‘whether a person who … Continue reading Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd: SC 27 Jun 2012
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was incorrect, the judge having left open the inferences which might be drawn. Held: The … Continue reading Petkar and Farquar, Regina v: CACD 16 Oct 2003
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications. Held: It was permissible to use special counsel, but this must genuinely … Continue reading Regina v H; Regina v C: HL 5 Feb 2004
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime. Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means … Continue reading Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. He appealed against the … Continue reading Martin v Watson: HL 13 Jul 1995
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order could properly be made, and said that in any event it should be discharged. Held: … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order: HL 17 Jun 2009
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass. Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser has done anything on the land (‘there’), apart from trespassing, with the required statutory intent? As to that, there is … Continue reading Bauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 22 Mar 2013
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent of disclosure required to amount to an offence. Held: There was no place for … Continue reading HM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd: Admn 13 May 2009
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the public under a closed material procedure. It argued that whilst the need for … Continue reading Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others: SC 13 Jul 2011
The House considered whether the long established rule of the criminal law presuming that a child did not have a guilty mind should be set aside. Held: Doli incapax, the presumption of a child’s lack of mens rea, is still effective and good law, but a child is not capable at law without the requisite … Continue reading C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 17 Mar 1995
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human Rights under article 6(2) and under common law. Held: The appeal … Continue reading Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: SC 16 Jul 2014
Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the 1994 Act. The defendant was said to … Continue reading Black v Regina: CACD 17 Jul 2020
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction for criminal damage. He had been accused of scratching an obscene message on a car. In doing so the person had misspelled the car owner’s name. When asked to write out the message, on interview the . .
The defendant company appealed against an order allowing inspection of documents for which litigation privilege had been claimed. It was said that the defendants had been involved in perjury in previous proceedings between the parties.
Held: . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts