Royal Mail Group Ltd v Allen and Another: Admn 3 Feb 2012

The defendant had been convicted on his plea of guilty to offences under section 83(1). As a postman he had diverted postal packets given to him for delivery. The judge later became concerned at the correctness of the plea which required the defendant to be a person ‘engaged in the business of a postal operator’ and set aside the conviction.
Held: Examining the legislative history and context the offence was clearly one to be faced by an individual. The appeal succeeded, and the convictions were restored.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 554 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Postal Services Act 2000 83(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.459546

Cornelius, Regina v: CACD 14 Mar 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for fraud under the 2006 Act, saying that the judge had wrongly failed to give a Ghosh direction. As a solicitor he had organised a scheme for buying properties, obtaining finance by the nomination of third parties as fronts. He said that though he was acting in breach of different professional protocols, the sums were fully secured and had been repaid without additional risk to the lender, and he had not acted dishonestly.
Held: A special court was held to consider whether a Ghosh direction was appropriate.

Judges:

Hughes P QBD

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMidland Bank Plc v Cox McQueen (A Firm) CA 26-Jan-1999
Solicitors were instructed by the bank to obtain the signature of a client and of his wife to a motgage. The deed was signed by the husband and a woman pretending to be the wife.
Held: The court said that it was asked whether the bank intended . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg and Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc v Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc v Hopkin John and Co CA 21-May-1998
The defendant solicitors had each acted for banks in completing charges over property. They had given the standard agreed form of undertaking to secure a good and marketable title, and the banks now alleged that they were in breach because . .

Cited by:

CitedIvey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.452139

The Freedom and Justice Party and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another: Admn 5 Aug 2016

The court was asked whether members of special missions visiting the United Kingdom with the approval of the First Defendant (‘the FCO’) enjoy personal inviolability and/or immunity from criminal process pursuant to a rule of customary international law to which effect is given by the common law.

Judges:

Lloyd Jones LJ, Jay J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, International

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.568008

John M, Regina v: CACD 14 Nov 2003

The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the defendant must be able (a) to understand the questions he is asked in the witness box, (b) to apply his mind to answering them, and (c) to convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to give. It is not necessary that his answers should be plausible or believable or reliable… Nor is it necessary that the defendant should be able to remember all or any of the matters which give rise to the charge against him…’
Held: The judge’s direction ws approved. The court considered the authorities on the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. The court summarised the questions to be asked: ‘Does the defendant understand the charges that have been made against him? Is he able to decide whether to plead guilty or not? Is he able to exercise his right to challenge the jurors? Is he able intelligently to convey to his lawyers the case which he wishes them to advance on his behalf, and the matters which he wishes to put forward in his defence? Is he able to follow the proceedings when they come to court? And is he able, if he wishes, to give evidence on his own behalf? ‘

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans, J Cooke J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3452, [2004] MHLR 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedRex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
CitedRegina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .

Cited by:

CitedMoyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
CitedTaitt v The State PC 8-Nov-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law . .
CitedOrr, Regina v CACD 7-Jul-2016
The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279859

M and Others, Regina v: CACD 7 Feb 2007

The defendants appealed a ruling by the recorder that electronic storage devices were ‘articles’ within s57. S58 dealt with documents, and section 57 with articles.
Held: Hooper LJ said: ‘There is no practical difference between a book which a person can read (perhaps with help) and a CD which can be read by inserting it into a computer. To submit that the CD is not an article because it can only be read with a computer seems to us farfetched. ‘ However, if that were the case it was submitted that section 58 would be redundant. Parliament could not allow section 58 to be sidestepped by allowing a prosecutor to treat a docment as an article. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 218

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000 57 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRowe v Regina CACD 15-Mar-2007
The defendant had been convicted of possessing articles for terrorist purposes, namely a notebook with notes setting out how to construct a mortar bomb in his handwriting. There was also a coded list of potential targets.
Held: The decision in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.248848

Regina v Fitzgerald: CACD 5 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed his conviction under section 5(2). He had been found with a false passport. He was charged under 5(1), and offered a plea to a charge under 5(2), but the judge refused to add a count. The jury declined to convict and substituted the 5(2) conviction after the trial.
Held: A section 5(1) charge impliedly included an offence under 5(2), but where the evidence might support either charge, courts would be better advised to add them as alternate counts.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Stanley Burton His Honour Judge Fawcus

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 576, Times 17-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 5(1) 5(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.179551

Cuns, Regina (on The Application of) v Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court: Admn 4 Mar 2016

Application for permission to apply for judicial review, heard as a rolled-up hearing with considerable speed in circumstances where the disqualification of the claimant from driving after a conviction in relation to a drink drive offence meant that he wanted an interim suspension of the disqualification. The defendant claimed to have a phobia of needles, and said this was a proper reason for refusing to give a sample of blood.
Held: Refused.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 748 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567931

The Secretary of State for The Home Department v EB: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant had been released on licence after conviction for an offence under the 2000 Act. He was subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure for a year, but now appealed against a rejection of his request for a variation of the conditions.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2000, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.567872

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey: 29 Jun 1992

(Supreme Court of the USA) The Court discussed the grounds upon which it would depart from precedent and why it would not overrule its equally controversial decision on abortion in Roe v. Wade.
Held: ‘no judicial system could do society’s work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it . . . Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable.’

Judges:

Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter J.J

Citations:

(1992) 505 U.S. 833

Links:

LII

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedLewis, Taylor and Mcleod, Brown, Taylor and Shaw v the Attorney General of Jamaica and Another PC 12-Sep-2000
(Jamaica) When the Privy Council considered a petition for mercy by a person sentenced to death, it could not revisit the decision, but could look only at the procedural fairness of the system. The system should allow properly for representations, . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.622605

Cox v Army Council: PC 1963

The provisions of the English Army Act, are to be applied ‘in diverse circumstances wherever the armed forces of the Crown happen to be, in developed or undeveloped countries, as conquerors or guests, and their purpose is . . Disciplinary.’ Criminal law applies only in respect of acts committed or omissions made within England. Viscount Simons said: ‘apart from those exceptional cases in which specific provision is made in regard to acts committed abroad, the whole body of the criminal law of England deals only with acts committed in England.’ and ‘with rare exceptions the whole body of our criminal law is ‘domestic’ in the sense that it is made for the order and good government of this country and is applicable only to acts done on English soil.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 48, (1962) 46 Cr App R 258

Cited by:

CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.373404

Regina v James Langmead: CCCR 1864

The defendant was indicted and tried at Devon Quarter Sessions on two counts, the first count for stealing and the second count for feloniously receiving a number of sheep, the property of Mr. Glanfield, a neighbouring farmer of the Parish of Belstone, some twenty two miles distance from Exeter. Mr. Glanfield had last seen the sheep on Belstone common about a fortnight before Christmas. On 22nd December Mr. William Smith, a cattle dealer, received a letter from the defendant offering to sell him some sheep. The letter informed Mr. Smith that the defendant would be at Little St. John’s Cross at the King William Inn about a mile away from Exeter. On the evening of 23rd December Mr. Smith met the defendant at the Inn and the defendant sold him a number of sheep, including those belonging to Mr. Glanfield. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the defendant’s counsel submitted to the Court that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury. This submission was not accepted and the jury found the defendant guilty of feloniously receiving the sheep knowing them to be stolen. Following upon that verdicts counsel objected that there was no evidence before the Court to support the second count, and that the jury should have been directed that they could not find him guilty because, so he contended: ‘The evidence proved no more than recent possession by the prisoner after the loss, unaccounted for, and that, although a presumption of guilt might legally be inferred from recent possession, unaccounted for, alone, if the offence of which the jury found the prisoner guilty had been theft, yet that guilt could not be inferred from recent possession, unaccounted for, alone, in considering whether the prisoner was guilty of feloniously receiving the sheep knowing them to have been stolen.’
There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict but at the request of the defendant’s counsel they granted a case on the following question: ‘Whether, upon the whole case, the jury should have been directed that they could not lawfully find the prisoner guilty upon the second count.’ In his submissions to the Court the defendant’s counsel contended that the evidence established that it would have been impossible for either the defendant or his sons to have stolen the sheep and therefore the prisoner should have been acquitted, for recent possession is evidence of stealing only and not of receiving.
Held: This submission was rejected.
Bollock CB said: ‘We are all satisfied that the Chairman could not have withdrawn this case from the consideration of the jury or have directed them that there was no evidence that the prisoner had received the sheep knowing them to have been stolen. Speaking for myself, I may add, that in my opinion, the distinction taken by Mr. Carter between a charge of stealing and one of receiving, with reference to the effect of evidence of recent possession, is not the law of England. If no other person is involved in the transaction forming the subject of the enquiry, and the whole of the case against the prisoner is that he was found in possession of the stolen property, the evidence would, no doubt, point to a case of stealing rather than a case of receiving; but in every case, except, indeed, where the possession is so recent that it is impossible for anyone else to have committed the theft, it becomes a mere question for the jury whether the person found in possession of the stolen property stole it himself or received it from someone else’
Martin B agreed.
Byles J said: ‘If the question was whether the verdict was right, there would be much force in many of Mr. Carter’s observations; but the point we have to decide is whether there was any evidence to go to the jury.’
Blackburn J. in his judgment rejected the submission made by Mr Carter observing: ‘I do not agree . . that recent possession is not as vehement evidence of receiving as of stealing. When it has been shown that the property has been stolen, and has been found recently after its loss in the possession of the prisoner, he is called upon to account for having it, and, on his failing to do so, the jury may very well infer that his possession was dishonest, and that he was either the thief or the receiver according to the circumstances.’
Mellor J concurring, said: ‘It is clear, that, whatever was the mode in which the jury in this case arrived at their verdict, there was evidence from which they might safely have drawn either conclusion.’
In the course of giving their judgments a number of the judges expressed their opinions as to how the jury might have reached their verdict. Pollock C.B., said: ‘If, as I have said, there is no other evidence, the jury will probably consider with reason that the prisoner stole the property; but, if there is other evidence which is consistent either with his having stolen the property, or with his having received it from someone else, it will be for the jury to say which appears to them to be the more probable solution.’
He then observed that although there was some evidence that the accused had stolen the sheep, yet the inference that he had sent his sons to drive the sheep to St. John’s Cross, having received them from someone who had stolen them, appeared to him to be the more cogent, adding: ‘however this may have been, we are all of the opinion that there was evidence to go to the jury’.
Martin B commented: ‘In cases of this nature it often happens that some of the jurors feel doubts, and think they ought not to convict the prisoner of stealing unless someone has actually seen him taking the property, and so they concur in convicting him of receiving, supposing that that is the more lenient view.’
Byles J stated that in his opinion there were three ways which he described, in which the accused might have received the sheep with guilty knowledge. Blackburn J, in analysing the facts, also expressed the view that it was more probable that the sheep had been stolen previously by some other person and driven to some place near Exeter, where they were picked up by the boys. He added: ‘I andpound; that were so, the inference would be irresistible that the person from whom the boys received them was the actual thief. Then, that being so, the father was, no doubt, an accessory before the fact, and there was, therefore, evidence for the jury on which they might convict him of receiving.’
In speculating as to how the jury might have arrived at their verdict, the judges were in no manner suggesting that a judge, in his summing-up, should direct the jury that, where a person is charged with theft and in the alternative with receiving, and the evidence (or the sole evidence) connecting him with the offence is the recent possession of the stolen property, then if the only reasonable inference is that he must have either stolen the property or received it knowing it to be stolen, they should ask themselves which is the more probable offence and convict accordingly. There is no reflection of such a rule in English authorities and Langmead has not been cited in any English judgments for such a proposition. Their Lordships are firmly of the opinion that not only was such a direction quite uncalled for In this case for the reasons already given but that such a direction is wrong in law. It detracts, or may be thought to detract, from the obligation of the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the particular offence, before they enter such a verdict.

Judges:

Bollock CB, Mellor J, Blackburn J, Byles J, Martin B

Citations:

[1864] EngR 47, (1864) Le and Ca 427, (1864) 169 ER 1459

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAttorney General of Hong Kong v Yip Kai Foon PC 7-Dec-1987
High Court of Hong Kong – The prosecutor appealed against a quashing of a conviction on a charge of handling stolen goods. The defendant had been charged with robbery with handling as an alternative provided under statute.
Held: Where there . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.281761

Regina v Chisam: CCA 1963

A defendant’s belief founding a plea of self defence must be both honest and reasonable. A sufficient justification was established if the accused genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that a relative or friend was in imminent danger of injury, even though that belief was based on an honest mistake of fact.

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

(1963) 47 Cr App R 130

Citing:

CitedRegina v Weston 1879
. .

Cited by:

RejectedBeckford v The Queen PC 15-Jun-1987
(Jamaica) Self defence permits a defendant to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believed them to be. ‘If then a genuine belief, albeit without reasonable grounds, is a defence to rape because it negatives the . .
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedRegina v Fennell CACD 1971
A father was accused of assaulting a police constable in order to release his son from custody. He pleaded self defence, saying that he had believed the arrest unlawful.
Held: The defence failed. A defendant seeking to justify an assault, . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Armstrong-Braun Admn 5-Oct-1998
A building site was subject to a requirement to move great crested newts before work could proceed. The defendant, a local councillor interfered to prevent a digger destroying the land until the newts had been moved. He appealed his conviction for . .
CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.219152

Regina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1972

The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency.
Held: There now exists no power in the courts to create new criminal offences. A new criminal offence could only be created by Act of Parliament. The House considered its ability to depart from its own previous decisions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale set out the matters which should be included in the directions to the jury where a defendant faced charges of outraging public decency: ‘It should be emphasised that ‘outrage’, like ‘corrupt,’ is a very strong word. ‘Outraging public decency’ goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people. Moreover the offence is, in my view, concerned with recognised minimum standards of decency, which are likely to vary from time to time.’ It is sufficient for liability that, on an objective assessment, the conduct complained of should cause public offence. Aa jury should be directed that, ‘outraging public decency goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of or even shocking reasonable people.’
Lord Reid said: ‘It was decided by this House in Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 220 that conspiracy to corrupt public morals is a crime known to the law of England. So if the appellants are to succeed on this count, either this House must reverse that decision or there must be sufficient grounds for distinguishing this case. The appellants’ main argument is that we should reconsider that decision; alternatively they submit that it can and should be distinguished.
I dissented in Shaw’s case. On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act . . . I think that however wrong or anomalous the decision may be it must stand and apply to cases reasonably analogous unless or until it is altered by Parliament.’ and ‘if the appellants are to succeed on this count, either this House must reverse that decision or there must be sufficient grounds for distinguishing this case. The appellants’ main argument is that we should reconsider that decision; alternatively they submit that it can and should be distinguished. I dissented in Shaw’s case. On reconsideration I still think that the decision was wrong and I see no reason to alter anything which I said in my speech. But it does not follow that I should now support a motion to reconsider the decision. I have said more than once in recent cases that our change of practice in no longer regarding previous decisions of this House as absolutely binding does not mean that whenever we think that a previous decision was wrong we should reverse it. In the general interest of certainty in the law we must be sure that there is some very good reason before we so act . . I think that however wrong or anomalous the decision may be it must stand and apply to cases reasonably analogous unless or until it is altered by Parliament.’ and
‘there is a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties and making it lawful in the full sense.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Citations:

[1973] AC 435, [1972] 2 All ER 898, 56 Cr App R 633

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Re-ConsideredShaw v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 4-May-1961
Offence of Conspiracy to corrupt public morals
The defendant appealed against his convictions for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and for living from the earnings of prostitution. He said that first was not an offence known to common law. After it became unlawful for a prostitute to ply her . .
CitedPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:

CitedRees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .
CitedRegina v Ching Choi CACD 7-May-1999
The defendant appealed his six convictions for outraging public decency. He had used a video camera and mirrors to record images of women using the toilet in a chinese supermarket. . .
CitedRegina v Curran CACD 29-Oct-1998
The defendant sought leave to appeal his convictions for outraging public decency. He had been seen having sex on the bonnet of a car in a car park at Heathrow.
Held: the acts complained of could found a conviction for outraging public . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
CitedGreen, Regina (on the Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Thoday, Thompson Admn 5-Dec-2007
The claimant appealed from the refusal by the magistrate to issue summonses for the prosecution for blashemous libel of the Director General of the BBC and the producers of a show entitled ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera.’
Held: The gist of the . .
CitedDoherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecution v Withers HL 20-Nov-1974
The House was asked to consider whether there existed the crime of a conspiracy to commit a public mischief.
Held: There was no such crime, since it was so undefined as to be unfair to any defendant. Although at common law no clear distinction . .
CitedThe Director of Public Prosecutions v SK Admn 10-Feb-2016
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The defendant had completed somebody else’s community service sentence. The prosecutor said that such an act did affect something ‘in the course of . .
CitedAl Rabbat v Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 31-Jul-2017
The claimant appealed against refusal of an application for judicial review in turn of a refusal to allow private prosecutions of Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith in respect of their involvement in the war in Iraq, and the alleged crime of . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Constitutional

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.186954

Regina v Self: CACD 25 Feb 1992

The defendant had been accused of the theft of a chocolate bar from a shop, and of assault on the store detective who had detained him. He had been acquitted of the charge of theft, and now appealed against the conviction for the assault saying that he had resisted an unlawful arrest.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed. The arrest had been unlawful, and he had been entitled to resist it. The conviction for assault when resisting an unlawful arrest, (no theft was later proved) could not stand.
Garland J said: ‘the words of section 24 do not admit of argument. Subsection (5) makes it abundantly clear that the powers of arrest without a warrant where an arrestable offence has been committed require as a condition precedent an offence committed. If subsequently there is an acquittal of the alleged offence no offence has been committed. The power to arrest is confined to the person guilty of the offence or anyone who the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it. But of course if he is not guilty there can be no valid suspicion.’

Judges:

Watkins, Swinton Thomas LJJ, Garland J

Citations:

Gazette 15-Apr-1992, [1992] EWCA Crim 2, [1992] 3 All ER 476, [1992] 1 WLR 657, (1992) 156 JP 397, (1992) 95 Cr App R 42, [1992] Crim LR 572

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24 (5), Offences Against the Person 1861 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWalters v WH Smith and Son Ltd CA 1914
The plaintiff alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after a private guard had arrested him at the defendant’s store.
Held: A private individual may justify his arrest of another on suspicion of having committed a felony only if . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88001

Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others: QBD 22 Nov 2000

An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the additional protection of the human rights convention. Necessarily, the circumstances from which protection was sought were ones where proof will not be easily found. There is no overriding test within domestic law for deciding whether proceedings are civil or criminal. The procedure here was one generally used for civil proceedings, and no punishment was properly involved at this stage. At most there would be a restriction on activities of those subject to the order. Lord Woolf said: ‘The significance of whether the proceedings are civil or criminal arises because of the difficulty that exists in relation to the proof of the sort of conduct against which section 1 is designed to provide protection. Understandably, in a locality those who are subject to anti-social behaviour are chary about giving evidence in criminal proceedings. It is in particular because of those difficulties that, after a consultation process, the legislation which is contained in Part 1 of the 1998 Act was passed. The object of making the proof of conduct which is anti-social more easy to prove would be defeated if in fact the proceedings were criminal. Then the normal rules of evidence which apply to criminal proceedings would have to be complied with and furthermore the proceedings would be subject to the additional protection provided by Article 6 of the European Convention in relation to criminal proceedings.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 11-Jan-2001, Times 22-Dec-2000, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2000] EWHC 565 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, European Convention on Human Rights 5.1

Citing:

CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Rogers (Legal Professional Privilege) Admn 2-Feb-1999
The police had sought disclosure from the applicant’s solicitors of records of the time at which the applicant arrived at the solicitors’ premises on a particular date and like documents.
Held: Such records are not privileged because they did . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
CitedRegina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
At First InstanceClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Administrative, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87261

Regina v Clegg: HL 25 Jan 1995

The defendant was a soldier on patrol in Northern Ireland. He was convicted of the murder of the passenger and attempted murder of the driver of a stolen car. He said he had fired in self defence. The Court of Appeal had rejected his appeal saying that on the facts it had been a grossly excessive and disproportionate use of force. The House was asked: ‘whether a soldier on duty, who kills a
person with the requisite intention for murder, but who would be entitled to rely on self-defence but for the use of excessive force, is guilty of murder or manslaughter.’
Held: The use of grossly excessive force in self defence can be no justification for murder, even when the act was committed by a soldier on duty. The alternative of manslaughter was not available in such a case.

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-1995, Independent 01-Feb-1995, Times 25-Jan-1995, [1995] UKHL 1, [1995] 1 All ER 334, [1995] 1 AC 482

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

MentionedRex v Cook 1640
The intent to resist unlawful apprehension is treated as a state of mind constituting ‘that lighter degree of malice which is necessary to the crime of manslaughter’ rather than murder. . .
CitedThe Queen v Howe 1958
High Court of Australia – Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Quashed on appeal to Supreme Court – New trial ordered – Appeal to High Court by Crown – Special leave – Questions of law affecting law of homicide – Importance – Self-defence – . .
CitedRegina v McInnes CACD 1971
Edmund Davies LJ said: ‘But where self-defence fails on the ground that force used went clearly beyond that which was reasonable in the light of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the accused, is it the law that the inevitable result . .
CitedPalmer v The Queen PC 23-Nov-1970
It is a defence in criminal law to a charge of assault if the defendant had an honest belief that he was going to be attacked and reacted with proportionate force: ‘If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Armed Forces

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86397

Director of Public Prosecutions v Gomez: HL 3 Dec 1992

The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of property belonging to another had taken place.
Held: An appropriation of goods sufficient to found a charge of theft may occurr when the consent to the act is obtained by a deception, and which deception results in the voidable transfer of ownership. Goods obtained by a deception might also be subject to a theft charge, because of the assumption of the rights of an owner.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘ . . it would offend both common sense and justice to hold that the very control which enables such people to extract the company’s assets constitutes a defence to a charge of theft from the company. The question in each case must be whether the extraction of the property from the company was dishonest, not whether the alleged thief has consented to his own wrongdoing.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry (dissenting), Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Slynn of Hadley

Citations:

Gazette 03-Mar-1993, Times 08-Dec-1992, [1993] AC 442, [1992] UKHL 4, [1993] 1 All ER 1

Links:

Hamlyn, Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 1(1)

Citing:

ApprovedLawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 30-Jun-1971
The defendant, a taxi driver, had without objection on the part of an Italian student asked for a fare of andpound;6 for a journey for which the correct lawful fare was 10s 6d. The taxi driver was convicted of theft. On appeal the main contention . .
Appeal fromRegina v Gomez CACD 1991
The defendant was an assistant shop manager. He accepted two cheques which he knew to be stolen from a customer in exchange for goods, by persuading the manager that the cheques were valid. He was accused of theft of the goods. He answered that a . .
ApprovedAttorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1982) CACD 1984
Two men were charged with theft from a company which they wholly owned and controlled. The court considered the actions of company directors in dishonestly appropriating the property of the company, and whether since the title to the goods was . .
CitedBlack-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG HL 5-Mar-1975
Statute’s Mischief May be Inspected
The House considered limitations upon them in reading statements made in the Houses of Parliament when construing a statute.
Held: It is rare that a statute can be properly interpreted without knowing the legislative object. The courts may . .
Explained and LimitedRegina v Morris (David); Anderton v Burnside HL 2-Jan-1983
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .
CitedDobson v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc CA 1989
The plaintiff sought to claim under his household insurance. He sold some jewelry, accepting a building society cheque which turned out later to be stolen. He argued that his loss was ‘loss or damage caused by theft’ The insurer argued that there . .
CitedLewis v Averay CA 22-Jul-1971
A private seller had parted with his car in return for a worthless cheque to a rogue who persuaded him that he was the well-known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and who sold it on to the defendant.
Held: ‘When two parties have come . .
CitedPhillips v Brooks Ltd 1919
A jeweller had a ring for sale. The buyer pretended to be somebody else: ‘I am Sir George Bullough of 11 St. James’s Square.’ The jeweller had heard of Sir George Bullough and checked he lived at the address given. He released the jewellry against . .
CitedRegina v Desmond HL 1965
The House analysed the authorities on the law of larceny and robbery, and declared its current state. While in earlier times robbery may have been limited to where there was actual violence, it became sufficient that there was ‘a putting in fear of . .
Wrongly decidedRegina v Fritschy CACD 1985
The defendant was instructed by the owner to collect a quantity of krugerrands in London and deliver them to a safe deposit in Switzerland. The defendant, having once collected the coins, took them to Switzerland and there made away with them. The . .
CitedRegina v Skipp CACD 1975
The defendant, presented himself as a contractor, and was instructed to collect and deliver consignments of goods from three different places. Having collected the goods he made off with them. He faced one count of theft in respect of the three . .
CitedRegina v Kassim HL 19-Jul-1991
The trial judge had held that a telex message requesting payment of andpound;960,000 had been ‘executed’ because it had been put into effect.
Held: A valuable security was not executed when the drawer’s bank acted upon the cheque, or request . .
CitedRegina v Philippou CA 1989
The defendants were sole directors and shareholders of their company. They appealed a conviction of theft from the company.
Held: The convictions stood. ‘Appropriates’ is to be given its ordinary English meaning, namely, ‘takes as one’s own or . .
CitedRegina v McHugh CACD 1988
In cases alleging corporate fraud it is necessary to look very carefully at the nature and limits of the authority before considering whether the questioned transaction is in truth a transaction authorised by the company. . .
DisapprovedRegina v Roffel 19-Dec-1984
(Australia – Supreme Court of Victoria) A couple ran a clothing manufacturing business. They then formed a limited company of which they became the sole directors and shareholders and sold the business to the company. The price remained unpaid. The . .
CitedSalomon v A Salomon and Company Ltd HL 16-Nov-1896
A Company and its Directors are not same paersons
Mr Salomon had incorporated his long standing personal business of shoe manufacture into a limited company. He held nearly all the shares, and had received debentures on the transfer into the company of his former business. The business failed, and . .
CitedRegina v Shuck CACD 1992
The defendant was a company officer. He gave instructions to an innocent third party which resulted in the dishonest diversion of substantial sums of the company’s money. He appealed the judge’s interpretation of the word ‘appropriation.’
CitedWhitehorn Brothers v Davison CA 1911
It is for the defrauded owner seeking to recover his goods to prove that the purchaser had actual or constructive knowledge of the fraud. The passing of a good title to an innocent purchaser applied when the owner had been induced by false pretences . .
CitedTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedWimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation HL 1954
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if . .

Cited by:

ConfirmedRegina v Hinks HL 27-Oct-2000
A woman befriending an older man of limited intelligence accepted daily cash payments from his building society over eight months, claiming them to be gifts. She now appealed against her conviction for theft.
Held: (Lord Hutton dissenting) For . .
CitedWheatley and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands PC 4-May-2006
(The British Virgin Islands) The defendants appealed against convictions for theft and misconduct. Being civil servants they had entered in to contract with companies in which they had interests. . .
CitedPrest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Company

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86704

Regina v Hinks: HL 27 Oct 2000

A woman befriending an older man of limited intelligence accepted daily cash payments from his building society over eight months, claiming them to be gifts. She now appealed against her conviction for theft.
Held: (Lord Hutton dissenting) For the purposes of the Theft Acts the acceptance of a gift can constitute ‘appropriation.’ The word is not to be construed narrowly. It is neutral, and intended to encompass any assumption of the rights of an owner. In this case the defendant had persuaded a vulnerable and trusting person to make substantial gifts over period of time. An appropriation need not involve an element of adverse interference or assertion of some right of ownership. Would an ordinary member of the public see the act as dishonest?
Lord Hobhouse said: ‘The making of a gift . . involves the donor in forming the intention to give and then acting on that intention by doing whatever is necessary for him to do to transfer the relevant property to the donee.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-2000, Gazette 09-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 53, [2000] 3 WLR 1590, [2001] 2 AC 241, (2001) 165 JP 21, [2001] 1 Cr App R 18, [2001] Crim LR 162, [2000] 4 All ER 833, [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 18

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Citing:

ConfirmedRegina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
ConfirmedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Gomez HL 3-Dec-1992
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of . .

Cited by:

CitedWheatley and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands PC 4-May-2006
(The British Virgin Islands) The defendants appealed against convictions for theft and misconduct. Being civil servants they had entered in to contract with companies in which they had interests. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85307

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison: HL 2 Sep 1999

A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was not limited to access obtained by an outsider or hacker. A section 1 offence could be committed without the relevant intent being proved to be directed at particular data. A conspiracy to commit an offence under section 2 is extradictable.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999, [1999] UKHL 31, [1999] ALL ER 1, [2000] 2 AC 216

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gilmore and Ogun Admn 6-Jun-1997
An ‘offence under the Act’ does not include a conspiracy to commit that offence for purposes of extradition proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the effect of the Act of 1989 was to free the Treaty from the constraints imposed by the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another QBD 6-Jun-1997
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own . .
Not followedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stanford CACD 1-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for the unlawful interception of communications, saying that he was authorised to access the information he had obtained. He had instructed a junior employee to access emails by the use of an ID and password . .
CitedZakrzewski v The Regional Court In Lodz, Poland SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellant was subject to an extradition request. He objected that the request involved an aggregation of sentences and that this did not meet the requirement sof the 2003 Act. He had been arrested under the arrest warrant, but during his trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85134

Nerva and Others v R L and G (T/a Paradiso E Inferno and Trota Blu Wine Bar): CACD 15 May 1996

A waiter’s tips which were received, and then re-distributed by the employer, are part of the employees’ wages for minimum wage purposes. The gratuities became the employer’s property so that when they paid the waiters their share of them, they were doing so with their (the employer’s) own money and such payments therefore counted towards the remuneration they paid.

Citations:

Times 28-May-1996, Gazette 19-Jun-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 449, [2002] IRLR 815, [1997] ICR 11

Statutes:

Wages Council Act 1979, Wages Act 1986 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromNerva And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Sep-2002
The claimants were waiters. Tips paid were included in credit card payments to their employers, who then paid them out in ‘additional pay’. The waiters claimed that this was then included within the wage, and used to calculate their minimum pay. . .
CitedAnnabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 7-May-2009
The court considered whether tips paid at a restaurant by means of a credit card or cheque thus becoming the employer’s money could properly count toward the minimum wage when paid on to the employee. The revenue contended that the money received . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84250

Haystead v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 2 Jun 2000

The defendant had hit a mother in the face as she held the child. The force was sufficient to cause her to drop the child causing injury to the child. He appealed against a conviction for beating the child.
Held: The appeal failed. A battery could be inflicted even though the force actually used was used only indirectly. There was no difference in principle between the use of a weapon to hit the child, and causing the injury through the mother. The only difference here was as to the presence of recklessness rather than intent.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Silber J

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2000, [2000] EWHC QB 181, [2000] COD 288, (2000) 164 JP 396, [2000] 2 Cr App Rep 339, [2000] Crim LR 758, [2000] 3 All ER 890

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 39

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .
CitedRegina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
CitedRegina v Martin CCCR 1881
r_martin CCCCR
The defendant was accused of unlawful conduct in causing panic at a theatre (by turning off the lights and barring the doors) in the course of which a number of people were injured by trampling as they stampeded down a stairway. His conduct was . .
CitedRegina v Salisbury 9-Oct-1972
Australia – Victoria The court considered the nature of the act required to found an allegation of assault: ‘It may be that the somewhat different wording of section 20 of the English Act has played a part in bringing about the existence of the two . .
CitedRegina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins HL 1983
The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the . .
CitedScott v Shepherd 1773
Squib Thrower’s Liability through Negligence
An accusation of assault and trespass will lie where the defendant threw a squib which was then thrown about by others in self defence, but eventually exploded putting out the plaintiff’s eye. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81287

DSG Retail Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council: QBD 23 Mar 2001

A trader can commit the offence of giving a misleading price indication without the prosecution having to identify any particular goods which had been offered for sale at that particular price. The price indication could be given in any of several ways, of which stating a price at a place where a purchase was to be completed was only one. In this case an offer to beat any other price offered locally was in fact intended to be limited in ways not indicated, and there were additional undisclosed terms and conditions. The notice was part of the entire interplay between the customer and shop, and was misleading.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 20(1)

Media, Consumer, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80140

Director of Public Prosecutions v Waite: QBD 17 May 1996

The defendant had a scanner tuned to listen in to the police channel. He committed an offence under the section.

Citations:

Times 17-May-1996, (1996) 160 JP 545

Statutes:

Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 5(b)(i)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Foot Admn 29-Jan-1998
A device which tested for police radar speed check did not intercept a message between persons and therefore was not unlawful. ‘a signal in this context is not a mere electronic impulse but is rather a sign or something of meaning to another person. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80051

Director of Public Prosecutions v Saddington; Chief Constable of the North Yorkshire Police v Michael Saddington: Admn 1 Nov 2000

A motorised scooter of the type known as a ‘Go-Ped’ was a motor vehicle within the Act. Accordingly a driving licence and third party insurance were both required for its use on a public highway. The scooter required the passenger to stand on a small platform, and was powered by a 22.5cc engine. The braking and steering systems were inadequate, and the scooter had none of the other services such as lights and controls normally required to control a motor vehicle. The test was whether a reasonable person would see the rider as a road user. If he would, then it was a motor vehicle. Its use on roads was to be expected, and it therefore was intended to be so used despite disclaimers from the manufacturers. Pill LJ said that ‘surrender to the temptation to use [it] on the roads will not be an isolated occurrence’.

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 409, [2001] RTR 227

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 185(1)

Citing:

CitedBurns v Currell 1963
The defendant was accused of offences related to the driving on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle, a Go-Kart.
Held: In fact it was not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Court set out the test to be applied in . .
CitedChief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Fleming QBD 1987
The defendant was stopped pushing a motor-cycle along the road. It had been adapted for scrambling, and the registration plates lights and speedometer had been removed. He argued that it was no longer a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on . .

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v King Admn 13-Feb-2008
The defendant was charged after driving a ‘City Mantis Electric Scooter’. He was disqualified from driving. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the charges on the basis that the scooter was not of such a description as to require a licence . .
CitedCoates, Regina v Misc 18-Jan-2011
(Barnsley Magistrates Court) The defendant owned a Segway, a two wheeled vehicle. He was charged with having driven it on a public footpath despite its being a motor vehicle. He denied that it was a motor vehicle ‘adapted or intended for use on the . .
CitedCoates v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for driving a Segway scooter on a footpath. He denied that it was ‘a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads.’
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80042

Director of Public Prosecutions v Seivanayagam; Director of Public Prosecutions v Moseley; Director of Public Prosecutions v Woodling: QBD 23 Jun 1999

Where a defendant had acted in breach of a court injunction, that conduct, almost necessarily, could not be considered as potentially reasonable for the purposes of the defence available under Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Citations:

Times 23-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1(3)(c)

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80047

Director of Public Prosecutions v Furby: QBD 23 Mar 2000

A motorist had deliberately failed to complete the breath test procedure twice. In later court proceedings he was able to bring medical evidence that he would have been unable to do so in any event. He was held to have been properly convicted. There could be no reasonable excuse where inability was later shown. He would only have been able to rely on the inability to supply a specimen if he had tried to provide one and failed.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80002

Director of Public Prosecutions v Gregson: QBD 23 Sep 1992

A knife fell from the defendant’s jeans during the course of a police search. He claimed to have forgotten about it.
Held: It is important to concentrate on the time in respect of which the defendant is charged. Six days earlier he had the knife on him for a good reason, because the justices found that it was a knife that he used in his work and would have had with him at his work and might well have put into his pocket at work six days earlier. But did he have it with him for a good reason at the time of his arrest? Could having it for work reasons six days earlier be a good reason for having it on him six days later when not at work. The question, therefore, it seems to me, boils down to whether forgetfulness at the relevant time was a good reason. It does appear that the justices found that he had forgotten that he had it on him. This was odd having regard to the finding of fact that the knife fell not from his jacket pocket where the knife, he said, had been put by him at the time of his work, but from his jeans, and the further finding that when that happened he offered no specific reason or excuse for having it with him. However, they did in fact find, as I understand it, that they believed that he had forgotten that he had the knife with him. Was that a good reason? Forgetfulness may be an explanation. It cannot be a good reason. The fact that a defendant has forgotten that he has an article cannot constitute a defence of good reason within the section.

Judges:

McCowan LJ

Citations:

Gazette 23-Sep-1992, [1992] 96 Cr App R 240

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 139

Citing:

CitedMcCalla, Regina v CACD 1988
A cosh had been found in the glove compartment of the appellant’s car. He said he had picked it up a month earlier, had put it away and had forgotten about it.
Held: The court reviewed the authorities on what constituted possession. Once . .

Cited by:

DoubtedJolie v Regina CACD 23-May-2003
The appellant had been convicted of having a pointed article with him in a public place. He said that the car he was driving had needed an instrument to operate the lock. At first he had used a knife, but then used scissors, losing the knife in the . .
CitedRegina v Manning CACD 22-Oct-1997
The defendant had been in possession of a knife which he said that he had used to fix his car radiator and then put in his pocket. As to the statutory defence the trial judge had directed the jury that ‘just forgetfulness on its own was no reason.’ . .
CitedRegina v Hargreaves CACD 30-Jul-1999
A cyclist stopped by the police had a knife in an inside pocket. He claimed to have taken it from home and then forgotten about it. He was advised that for the purposes of the section neither forgetfulness nor the fact that he was transporting the . .
CitedBayliss, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2003
The defendant was arrested in Tescos. On being searched he was found to have a lock knife. He had placed it in his belt and forgotten about it. He appealed conviction saying it had not been shown that he knew he still had the knife.
Held: . .
CitedChahal v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 24-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a bladed article. He had used the knife at work and forgotten to leave it at work and had it in his pocket by accident.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had been accepted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80006

Director of Public Prosecutions v Harris: QBD 16 Mar 1994

The defence of necessity will be available only in exceptional circumstances even for police drivers driving in pursuit of a suspect. The care due from the driver of an emergency vehicle crossing a junction against red lights is specifically provided for by that regulation, and in these circumstances the common law defence of necessity does not run.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-1994

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 3

Cited by:

CitedGriffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance CA 8-Oct-1997
A driver who had crossed through a green traffic light but had collided with an ambulance was 60 per cent contributorily negligent. He had failed to hear the ambulance, had failed to see it, and had ignored unusal driving of other motorists.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80009

Director of Public Prosecutions v Armstrong: QBD 25 Nov 1999

The defendant was charged with inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children, contrary to common law. The person approached never had it in mind to agree, but it was held that the offence was committed by the act of incitement. There was no need to show any parity of mens rea on the part of the person incited.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Nov-1999

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79981

Crown Prosecution Service v Barnard and Others: QBD 3 Nov 1999

The information against the derendants alleged no more than that the accused had ‘unlawfully occupied the site and that they had done so with the intention specified in s.68’ of the 1994 Act.
Held: The information did not disclose any offence known to the law. Section 68 makes it plain that to prove an offence of aggravated trespass not only must a trespass be proved but also a further act, accompanied by one or more of the intentions identified in the section. The act of entering onto land itself, could not be the second element of an allegation of aggravated trespass, since it was nothing more than a repeat of the allegation of trespass. Some separate and additional act must be alleged. Sufficient detail must be given to identify what particular acts, over and above the trespass, created the aggravating element.
The prosecutor sought to amend the information by adding an allegation that the accused had unlawfully occupied the site. The court doubted whether it would have been proper to allow the amendment and whether that would be sufficient to disclose a defence under s.68. Laws LJ said: ‘Mr Starmer, who appears for one only of the respondents . . concedes . . that there may be circumstances in which unlawful occupation in company with others could amount to the second act required to be proved under s.68. I would accept this; but in such a case I doubt whether a bare allegation of occupation would be satisfactory. At least I think it should be supported by some further particulars of what it is said the defendant was actually doing. The starting point is that the second act required by the statute must, in my judgment, be distinct and overt. Occupation may, in reality, in some cases amount to no more than the initial trespass. If the case being made were that the second act was constituted by the respondents distinctly remaining on the land in force and thus intimidating those lawfully engaged there, then I would expect to see something more than mere occupation with others pleaded in the information.’
Laws LJ tabulated the three elements which s.68(1) requires to be proved: ‘(i) Trespass on land in the open air; (as the Act then provided)
(ii) the doing of some act – that must be some distinct and overt act beyond the trespass itself; and
(iii) the intention by this second act to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 68(1)

Cited by:

CitedBauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79692

C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 30 Mar 1994

The 12 year old defendant held the handlebars of a motorcycle allowing a second boy to try to remove the chain and padlock securing it. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: The presumption of doli incapax for a 10-14 year old child is no longer good law. Laws J said: ‘Whatever may have been the position in an earlier age, when there was no system of universal compulsory education and when, perhaps, children did not grow up as quickly as they do nowadays, this presumption at the present time is a serious disservice to our law. It means that a child over ten who commits an act of obvious dishonesty, or even grave violence, is to be acquitted unless the prosecution specifically prove by discrete evidence that he understands the obliquity of what he is doing. It is unreal and contrary to common sense;’ and ‘Even that is not the end of it. The rule is divisive and perverse: divisive, because it tends to attach criminal consequences to the acts of children coming from what used to be called good homes more readily than to the acts of others; perverse, because it tends to absolve from criminal responsibility the very children most likely to commit criminal acts. It must surely nowadays be regarded as obvious that, where a morally impoverished upbringing may have led a teenager into crime, the facts of his background should go not to his guilt, but to his mitigation; the very emphasis placed in modern penal policy upon the desirability of non-custodial disposals designed to be remedial rather than retributive – especially in the case of young offenders – offers powerful support for the view that delinquents under the age of 14, who may know no better than to commit antisocial and sometimes dangerous crimes, should not be held immune from the criminal justice system, but sensibly managed within it. Otherwise they are left outside the law, free to commit further crime, perhaps of increasing gravity, unchecked by the courts whose very duty it is to bring them to book.’ and ‘the presumption is in principle objectionable. It is no part of the general law that a defendant should be proved to appreciate that his act is ‘seriously wrong.’ He may even think his crime to be justified; in the ordinary way no such consideration can be prayed in aid in his favour. Yet in a case where the presumption applies, an additional requirement, not insisted upon in the case of an adult, is imposed as a condition of guilt, namely a specific understanding in the mind of the child that his act is seriously wrong. This is out of step with the general law.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1994, [1995] 1 Cr App R 118

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte C QBD 7-Mar-1994
The doli incapax assumption that a child does not have a guilty mind, is no longer an appropriate presumption for a 12 year old youth. A prosecutor must act in accordance with the guidelines issued pursuant to the Act. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromC (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 17-Mar-1995
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 . .
CitedRegina v T CACD 16-Apr-2008
The twelve year old defendant had pleaded guilty to several allegations of sexual assault. The judge had ruled that it was not open to him to plead doli incapax. He appealed saying that only the presumption of doli incapax had been abolished, and . .
CitedJTB, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual assaults. He was aged twelve at the time of the offences, but had been prevented from arguing that he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. The House was asked whether the effect of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Children

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78795

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1999): CACD 29 Feb 2000

A conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence did not require proof of a defendant’s state of mind. Nevertheless such evidence might well be useful in other ways. A body corporate could be guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, but only if at least one identified individual was shown to be guilty of the same crime. Corporate manslaughter did not require evidence of the state of mind of the corporation, but somebody no doubt within the corporation must also be identified as responsible in law.

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000, [2000] QB 796

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of Rowley v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 4-Apr-2003
The applicant sought to challenge a decision not to prosecute a third party following the death of her son. He had been in care, having multiple disabilities, including epilepsy. He drowned whilst in a bath. It had been recognised that he needed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Company

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78005

Grace v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1989

The court was asked whether an air rifle amounted to a ‘lethal’ weapon.
Held: Allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions, Auld J said that: ‘the test applied by the justices as to what constituted a firearm within section 57(1) was correct. Their error lay in their approach to determining whether on the evidence before them the prosecution had proved the weapon satisfied the definition. Their inquiry should have involved two issues: (1) whether the weapon was one from which any shot, bullet or other missile could be discharged or whether it could be adapted so as to be made capable of discharging such a missile and (2) if so satisfied, whether it was a lethal barrelled weapon.’
. . And: ‘It could not constitute evidence as to the working or the capacity to work and the capacity or potential capacity to injure or kill of the air rifle in the present case. Expert evidence might not have been necessary. It could have been established by evidence of a witness to the firing of the gun or of someone familiar with such a weapon who could indicate to the court not only that it did work but what its observed effect was when it was fired.’

Judges:

Mann LJ, Auld J

Citations:

[1989] Crim LR 365

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCastle v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Mar-1998
Appeal by case stated from conviction of possession of firearms (air rifles) within five years of release from prison. The court was asked as to whether they were ‘lethal’
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ the Justices were entitled to reach the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.608656

Regina v ICR Haulage Ltd: KBD 1944

A company can be guilty of conspiracy, in this case to defraud. Both the managing director and, through him, the haulage company were convicted of conspiracy to defraud. His acts ‘were the acts of the company and the fraud of that person was the fraud of the company’.
‘Where the only punishment which the court can impose is death, for this purpose the basis of this exception is being that the court will not stultify itself by embarking on a trial in which, if the verdict of guilt is returned, no effective order by way of sentence can be made.’

Citations:

[1944] KB 551, [1944] 1 All ER 691

Cited by:

CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.565998

Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 1985): HCJ 1986

The Court a claim as to the relevancy of an indictment of perjury.
Held:
Lord Justice General Emslie said: ‘All that is required is that it should be clearly understood that a charge of perjury will not lie unless the evidence alleged to be false was both competent and relevant at the earlier trial either in proof of the libel or in relation to the credibility of the witness’.

Judges:

Lord Justice General Emslie

Citations:

1986 JC 137

Cited by:

CitedHer Majesty’s Advocate v Coulson HCJ 1-Jun-2015
Note. The accused faced a charge of perjury. In an earlier trial, itself for perjury, the defender (the first defender), acting without legal representation had called the now accused to give evidence as to whether accused, as editor of the News of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.547553

John De Freitas v The Queen: 1960

(West Indian Federal Supreme Court) If the prosecution have shown that the defendant’s actions were not done in self defence, then that issue is eliminated from the case.

Citations:

[1960] 2 WIR 523

Cited by:

Appeal fromJohn De Freitas v The Queen PC 10-Jul-1961
(West Indies) . .
PreferredPalmer v The Queen PC 23-Nov-1970
It is a defence in criminal law to a charge of assault if the defendant had an honest belief that he was going to be attacked and reacted with proportionate force: ‘If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.539753

Regina (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) v Christopher Steele: 2012

(Crown Court at Snaresbrook) The court acceded to the submission on trying a charge under the 2008 Regulations, that there was no case to answer in the context of a contract for building services with a consumer on the basis that such a contract did not fall within the definition of ‘commercial practice’ within the Regulations.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Lowe QC

Citations:

[2012] CTLC 109

Statutes:

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Cited by:

UnpersuasiveX Ltd, Regina v CACD 23-May-2013
The prosecutor appealed after the judge at the crown court had found no case to answer on a prosecution of the company under the 2008 Regulations. The company had sold a home security system to an elderly and vulnerable man. His family found that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.510093

Case XXXIV 1 H 7, 22, 23, 25 Felony, Rescous, Sancturary, Treason: 1220

The rescous of any person indicted of felony, is felony by the common law. Counsel should be allowed to a felon, if he has matter in law to plead ; but he ought to shew this matter before counsel shall be allowed. Sanctuary did riot lie for treason at common law; nor was any prescription for such sanctuary allowed.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 25, (1220-1623) Jenk 171, (1220) 145 ER 112 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460937

Rex v Thomas Gnosil: 14 Mar 1824

Garrow B considered the nature of the force involved in an act of robbery at common law: ”The mere act of taking being forcible will not make this offence highway robbery; to constitute the crime of highway robbery the force used must be either before or at the time of taking and must be of such a nature to show it was intended to overpower the party robbed and prevent his resisting, and not merely to get possession of the property stolen…’

Judges:

Garrow B

Citations:

[1824] EngR 432, (1824) 1 Car and P 304, (1824) 171 ER 1206

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRP and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2012
Appeal from conviction for robbery – theft of cigarette out of victim’s hand.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The court recognised the distinction between force applied to the object and the person: ‘ This case falls squarely on the side of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.327423

Regina v Primelt and Simmonds: 1858

On an indictment for unlawfully taking away a girl against the will of her parents, held, that if they have encouraged her in a lax course of life, the case does not come within the statute

Citations:

[1858] EngR 124 (A), (1858) 1 F and F 50

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.288595

Corbyn v Saunders: 1978

The defendant appealed a conviction for fare evasion, saying that it had been his intention to pay at the end of his journey.
Held: The section references to ‘dishonestly’ and the specific intention ‘to avoid payment’ were not two separate elements in the mens rea of the offence. Woolf LJ said: ‘It is clear from the first clause of section 5(3)(a) that the traveller is not to travel on the railway without paying the fare for the intended journey before he begins that journey. The intention that has to be proved is intention to avoid that obligation, ie, payment of the proper fare before he begins his journey.’

Judges:

Cummin-Bruce J, Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR 400

Statutes:

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 5(3)

Crime, Transport

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.276465

Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 25 Jul 2008

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and defendants themselves, from persons whom it would be unfair to try because they have insufficient understanding of the trial process. A legal system must have a procedure for dealing with that situation. There was a right of appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 against a finding of unfitness to plead . . The procedure provided was not capricious or arbitrary, and was followed.

Judges:

Pill, Baker, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 81(1), Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJuncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 19-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that he had been unlawfully detained when found unfit to plead in 1997.
Held: The claim failed. (a) The 1964 Act, and its Scottish equivalent, did not authorise anything that was arbitrary. (b) It followed . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
CitedRegina v M and Others CACD 5-Oct-2001
The court considered the nature of the detention of a defendant when he was found unfit to plead. Rose LJ said: ‘The old orders available to the courts [including the hospital order with restrictions] do not include any punishment or any order that . .
CitedWinterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
CitedJohnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
CitedRegina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Admn 27-Nov-2001
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
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 . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271102

HM Advocate v Kidd: 1960

The court set out the conditions for finding insanity in criminal law.

Citations:

1960 SLT 82

Cited by:

CitedCardle v Mulrainey HCJ 1992
The defendant drank lager into which a third party had put amphetamine. He then tried to start vehicles belonging to others with the intention of taking them away. He also took some property from one of the vehicles. The sheriff acquitted him. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.272897

Saddleworth Urban District Council v Aggregate and Sand Ltd: 1970

Citations:

(1970) 69 LGR 103

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936, Noise Abatement Act 1960

Cited by:

CitedManley and Another v New Forest District Council Admn 6-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed by way of case stated against their convictions for noise nuisance for their husky kennels – ‘Howling Dog Kennels’. They said that it was impractical, both for animal welfare and cost reasons further to limit the noise.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Environment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271240

Bryan v Robinson: 1960

Lord Parker CJ said: ‘Somebody may be annoyed by behaviour which is not insulting behaviour.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[I960] 2 All ER 173

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1936 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.270831

Regina v Latimer: 1886

Two men quarrelled in a public house. One struck at the other with his belt. The glancing blow bounced off and struck the prosecutrix, wounding her severely. He was prosecuted for having unlawfully and maliciously wounded her, contrary to section 20 1861 Act. Counsel for the defendant relied on Pembliton.
Held: Lord Coleridge CJ said: ‘It is common knowledge that a man who has an unlawful and malicious intent against another, and, in attempting to carry it out, injures a third person, is guilty of what the law deems malice against the person injured, because the person is doing an unlawful act, and has that which the judges call general malice, and that is enough.’
Bowen LJ distinguished Pembliton which: ‘was founded not upon malice in general but on a particular form of malice, viz., malicious injury to property.’ and ‘It is quite clear that the act was done by the prisoner with malice in his mind. I use the word ‘malice’ in the common law sense of the term, viz., a person is deemed malicious when he does an act which he knows will injure either the person or property of another.’

Judges:

Lord Coleridge CJ, Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1886) 17 QBD 359

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20

Citing:

DistinguishedRegina v Pembliton CCCR 1874
The defendant was fighting in the street. He picked up a large stone and threw it at the people he had been fighting with. He missed and broke a window causing damage of a value exceeding pounds 5. The jury convicted the defendant, although finding . .

Cited by:

CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant stabbed a pregnant woman. The child was born prematurely and died. The attack had been directed at the mother, and the proper offence was manslaughter.
Held: The only questions which need to be addressed are (1) whether the act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.270480

Ahmed v Leicester City Council: QBD 29 Mar 2000

A person carried on a food business even though he might be excluded from the premises, for example, by a partner. It was necessary to read the words of a provision carefully where criminal liability attached, but it was also intended to ensure that responsibility was not evaded by pretending that others ran the business. The proprietor was the person carrying on the business whether or not he was actually the owner.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Food Safety Act 1990 1(3), Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (1995 No 1763)

Licensing, Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77679

Regina v Flannery and Prendergast: 1969

(Supreme Court of Victoria) On the defendant’s trial for rape, the judge directed the jury: ‘It is a defence in a charge of rape if a person honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the girl in fact was a consenting party. That involves three things, gentlemen, an honest belief, that means a real genuine bona fide belief based upon reasonable grounds, that is to say, grounds that commend themselves to reasonable men as being reasonable that the girl in fact was consenting.’
Held: The direction was criticised. Winneke C.J said: ‘ Where there is absence of consent an accused’s belief, albeit mistaken in fact, that the woman was consenting to the act of intercourse necessarily relates to … the element of intention involved in the crime. It is impossible to dissociate that intention from a genuine belief in the mind of the accused, even though mistaken in fact, that such consent existed. The existence of such a belief necessarily negatives an awareness that the woman was not consenting, or a realization that she might not be and a determination to have intercourse with her whether she was consenting or not. It would, accordingly, negative an intention to have intercourse without consent inasmuch as the existence of such a belief would be inconsistent with such an intention:’ but ‘In a case where the evidence at the trial does raise [an issue of honest belief], its relevance is to the ingredient of the crime on which the burden of proof rests on the Crown. … It is apposite to quote a statement cited by Lord Reid in Warner v. Metropolitan Commissioner, [1968] 2 All E.R. 356, at p. 364: ‘The absence of mens rea’ really consists in an honest and reasonable belief entertained by the accused of the existence of facts which, if true, would make the act charged against him innocent”.

Judges:

Winneke CJ

Citations:

(1969) VR 31

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258681

Rex v Bunyan and Morgan: 1844

The two defendants were seen by a servant through the window to be exposing themselves to each other and committing lewd acts in a parlour room of a public house where they were alone; she summoned others who witnessed the act. The indictment charged the offence of outraging public decency as being in the sight and view of the servant and divers others. It was argued that publicity was of the essence of the offence and that therefore it was essential that it be committed in a public place so that the natural consequence of it was that it would be seen by others and that it was actually seen by others.
Held: The Recorder of London held that it was not necessary to prove that the public would detect them as the parties would seek as much privacy as they could, but was their position such that there was no reasonable probability of their being discovered? It was sufficient that they exposed themselves in a place where they were likely to be witnessed by others.

Citations:

(1844) 1 Cox 74

Cited by:

CitedHamilton, Regina v CACD 16-Aug-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for outraging public decency. He had surreptitously filmed up the skirts of women in a supermarket. The offence was only discovered after the films were found on a search of his home for other material. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258779

Regina v Flaherty and Others: 1968

Asprey J considered the mistakae as to the woman’s consent as a defence to a charge of rape: ‘a long line of authority establishes, at any rate so far as I am concerned, that the defence of mistake requires that the accused holds both an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of a state of facts which, if true, would make the act charged innocent.’

Judges:

Asprey J

Citations:

(1968) 89 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 141

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258682

Regina v Mujuru and Another: CACD 25 May 2007

The defendant appealed her conviction under the Act for allowing the death of her child by the unlawful act of another household member when she should have been aware of the risk to the child. She complained that the jury had not been adequately directed as to the meaning of ‘significant’ risk.
Held: The word was to be given its ordinary and normal meaning, and not as directed by the judge merely ‘more than minimal’. However given the other evidence of risk in the case, the appeal failed.

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, David Clarke J, Swift J

Citations:

Times 20-Jun-2007

Statutes:

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.254429

Davey v Lee: 1968

Lord Parker CJ defined ‘attempt’ in criminal law: ‘What amounts to an attempt has been described variously in the authorities, and for my part I prefer to adopt the definition given in Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law, 5th Ed. (1894) art. 50, where it says that: ‘An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted.’ As a general statement that seems to be right, although it does not help to define the point of time at which the series of acts begins. That, as Stephen said, depends upon the facts of each case. A helpful definition is given in paragraph 4104 in the current edition of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, where it is stated in this form: ‘It is submitted that the actus reus necessary to constitute an attempt is complete if the prisoner does an act which is a step towards the commission of a specific crime, which is immediately and not merely remotely connected with the commission of it, and the doing of which cannot reasonably be regarded as having any other purpose than the commission of the specific crime.”

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 QB 366

Cited by:

CitedHaughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.254526

Regina v Sheehan and Moore: CACD 1975

The court approved a direction of law to the jury who had been asked to conclude that the voluntary consumption of alcohol by the defendant should lead to the conclusion that he was too drunk to form the intention required for proof of the crime alleged against him, is that ‘a drunken intent is still an intent.’

Citations:

[1975] 60 CAR 308, [1975] 1 WLR 739

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGallagher, Regina v CACD 26-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that other acquittals were inconsistent.
Held: They were not. Leave refused. . .
CitedRegina v Kingston HL 22-Jul-1994
Involuntary Intoxication not a General Defence
The prosecutor appealed an acquittal on appeal of the defendant for sexual assault, saying that he had not had the necessary intent because of intoxication through drink and drugs. He said that a co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250548

Regina v Soule, Ali; Regina v Bombatu: CACD 23 Jan 2007

The defendants sought leave to appeal their convictions for having in their possession false identity documents with the intention to use them to establish a fact registrable under the Act, saying that since the Act had not yet implemented any register they could not be guilty.
Held: Leave was refused. The definitions in the section did not require there to be in existence the register: ‘There was nothing in the definition of ‘registrable fact’ in section 1(5) of the 2006 Act that required there to be a register in existence. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Gibbs and Mr Justice Roderick Evans

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2007

Statutes:

Identity Cards Act 2006 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.248917

Regina v Weston: 1879

Citations:

(1879) 14 Cox 346

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Chisam CCA 1963
A defendant’s belief founding a plea of self defence must be both honest and reasonable. A sufficient justification was established if the accused genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that a relative or friend was in imminent danger of injury, . .
CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
CitedRegina v Morgan HL 30-Apr-1975
The defendants appealed against their convictions for rape, denying mens rea and asserting a belief (even if mistaken) that the victim had consented.
Held: For a defence of mistake to succeed, the mistake must have been honestly made and need . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.244750

Regina v McCrudden: CACD 2005

Laws LJ: ‘Section 92(5) affords a positive and specific defence as to the use of the trade mark by the defendant. It does not provide a general defence of good faith … It seems to us that the provisions contained in section 92 have been devised to constitute a rigorous statutory code, involving offences initially of strict liability, for the plain policy reason that there is a very considerable public importance in preventing the trade in counterfeit goods.’

Judges:

Laws LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 466

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 92(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWest Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman Admn 13-Jun-2006
The complainant appealed dismissal of charges against the respondent of displaying for sale goods bearing marks identical to registered trade marks. The defendant asserted that he had reasonable grounds for belief that the goods were not counterfeit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243318

Mraz v The Queen: 1995

(High Court of Australia) Fullagar J: ‘A jury which would hesitate to convict of murder may be only too glad to take a middle course which is offered to them.’

Judges:

Fullagar J

Citations:

(1995) 93 CLR 493

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedGilbert v The Queen 2000
(High Court of Australia) Gilbert was tried for murder. The judge directed the jury that manslaughter was not an alternative verdict. The jury, correctly directed on the ingredients of murder, convicted.
Held: The court was aksed whether this . .
CitedRegina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243351

Bastable v Little: 1907

The police had set up a series of speed traps in London Road, Croydon. Mr Little occupied himself giving warning signals to drivers approaching the traps, thus ensuring that they did not exceed the speed limit. There was no evidence that the drivers were exceeding the speed limit at the time when they received Mr Little’s signals, although all slowed down. The defendant had been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty under section 2 of the 1885 Act.
Held:
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Suppose a party of men are engaged in the offence of night poaching, and a person passing near warns them that the police are coming, I think it is clear that that could not be held to be an offence within this section. We must not allow ourselves to be warped by any prejudice against motor cars, and so to strain the law against them.’
Darling J made the point that there was no evidence from another driver, and added: ‘In my opinion it is quite easy to distinguish the cases where a warning is given with the object of preventing the commission of a crime from the cases in which the crime is being committed and the warning is given in order that the commission of the crime should be suspended while there is danger of detection, with the intention that the commission of the crime should be re-commenced as soon as the danger of detection is past.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1907] 1 KB 59

Statutes:

Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act 1885 2

Cited by:

DistinguishedBetts v Stevens 1910
The defendant, an Automobile Association patrolman was accused of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The police had set a speed trap, and the defendant had warned approaching vehicles of the trap. At the time they were . .
CitedGreen v Moore 1982
The respondent, a probationer police constable was convicted for obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty under s51(3) of the 1964 Act. He was a regular in a bar he knew was to be raided. He warned the landlord who complied with . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Glendinning Admn 13-Oct-2005
The defendant had been accused of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty by warning motorists of presence of a police speed trap. The prosecutor appealed from dismissal of the charge.
Held: ‘the hand signals given by the . .
DistinguishedHinchcliffe v Sheldon QBD 20-Jan-1955
The appellant was the son of the licensee of an inn. On returning to the inn one night at about 11.17, he found that police officers wished to enter the premises as they suspected that the licensee was committing an offence under the Licensing Act . .
CitedLunt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1993
The defendant had been in a road traffic accident. The police came to his house to investigate the accident, but he refused to unlock the door to allow them entry. Stating reliance on section 4 of the 1988 Act, the officers threatened to force . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235212

Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung: PC 1987

Textile export quotas (a permission to export textiles) which were surplus to the exporter’s requirements, which could be bought and sold under the apprpriate Hong Kong legislation, may be ‘property’ for the purposes of the law of theft.

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 1339

Cited by:

CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
CitedWheatley and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands PC 4-May-2006
(The British Virgin Islands) The defendants appealed against convictions for theft and misconduct. Being civil servants they had entered in to contract with companies in which they had interests. . .
CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedAssets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
AppliedRegina v Williams (Jacqueline) and Crick CACD 30-Jul-1993
The defendant was accused of having obtained by deception a mortgage advance, the amount having been paid by electronic transfer.
Held: The sum of money represented by a figure in a bank account was not fully property for the purposes of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230286

Regina v Matthews: CCCR 1873

(Court of Crown Cases Reserved) Interpretation of bailee in law of larceny.

Citations:

(1873) 12 Cox CC 489

Cited by:

CitedThompson v Nixon QBD 1966
The court felt bound to follow the interpretation of the meaning of bailee in the 1916 Act from Matthews, even if, given the freedom to do so it would have interpreted it differently: ‘the present case falls four square within the decision in Reg v . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223719

Director of Public Prosecutions v McCabe: 1993

The defendant had 76 library books at his home which he had taken from one or more of the 32 different branches of a county library. He was convicted of a single offence of theft in relation to those books.

Citations:

[1993] 157 JP 443

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTovey and Another v Regina CACD 9-Mar-2005
Each defendant appealed sentences where he had committed a series of offences and the sentence had been for specimen acts.
Held: When choosing representative offences a prosecutor should be careful to try to give the court a proper picture of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.224234

Regina v Instan: 1893

It was legitimate to break the law where it was necessary to rescue someone to whom one owed a positive duty of rescue, because a failure to act in such a situation might itself constitute a culpable act or omission.

Citations:

[1893] 1 QB 450

Cited by:

CitedIn Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.213668

Director of Public Prosecutions v Nasralla: PC 1967

(Jamaica) The constitution provided that no person tried for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted should again be tried for that offence. It was asked whether this was to be treated as declaring the common law or as expressing the law on the subject differently.
Held: ‘All the judges below have treated [section 20(8)] as declaring or intended to declare the common law on the subject. Their Lordships agree. It is unnecessary to resort to implication for this intendment, since the Constitution itself expressly ensures it. Whereas the general rule, as is to be expected in a Constitution and is here embodied in section 2, is that the provisions of the Constitution should prevail over other law, an exception is made in Chapter III. This chapter, as their lordships have already noted, proceeds upon the presumption that the fundamental rights which it covers are already secured to the people of Jamaica by existing law. The laws in force are not to be subjected to scrutiny in order to see whether or not they conform to the precise terms of the protective provisions. The object of these provisions is to ensure that no future enactment shall in any matter which the chapter covers derogate from the rights which at the coming into force of the Constitution the individual enjoyed. Accordingly section 26(8) in Chapter III provides as follows . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Devlin

Citations:

[1967] 2 AC 238, (1967) 2 All ER 161

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWatson v Regina PC 7-Jul-2004
(Jamaica) The defendant was convicted of two murders from the same incident. The Act provided for the death penalty if he was convicted of a second murder. He appealed the death sentence in the circumstances, and said also that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.198648

Regina v Tao: 1977

Citations:

[1977] QB 141

Cited by:

CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195602

Regina v De Salvi: 1857

A person convicted of an assault can be charged with murder or manslaughter if the victim subsequently dies from the injuries sustained.

Citations:

(1857) 10 Cox CC 481

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.196841

Regina v Jackson: CA 1891

A husband had no right to confine his wife in order to enforce a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Citations:

[1891-4] All ER Rep 61, [1891] 1 QB 67 I

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Miller Assz 1954
A husband was charged with rape of his wife after she had left him and petitioned for divorce. He was also charged with an assault.
Held: There was no evidence which entitled the court to say that the wife’s implied consent to marital . .
CitedRegina v R HL 23-Oct-1991
H has no right to sexual intercourse with W – rape
The defendant appealed against his conviction for having raped his wife, saying that intercourse with his wife was necessarily lawful, and therefore outside the statutory definition of rape. Due to the matrimonial difficulties, the wife had left . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194942

Evans v Hughes: QBD 1972

The Court considered that for a defendant to justify his possession of a metal bar on a public highway he had to show that there was an imminent particular threat affecting the particular circumstances in which the weapon was carried.

Citations:

[1972] 3 All ER 412

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bayer, Hart, Snook, and Whistance Admn 4-Nov-2003
The defendants protested the growing of genetically modified crops. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of charges of aggravated trespass for them having entered a crop and attached themselves to tractors. The district judge decided they had genuine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187496

Regina v Brackenbury: 1893

Judges:

Day J

Citations:

(1893) 17 Cox 628

Citing:

Not followedRegina v Gavin 1888
The court excluded a statement made to a constable, who questioned his prisoner in a way that amounted to cross-examination. A constable has no right to ask questions without expressly saying that the answers cannot be relevant evidence. . .

Cited by:

CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Evidence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184192

Regina v Morrison: CACD 20 May 2003

The defendant appealed a conviction for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. He had faced trial on a charge of attempted murder, and the judge had left open to the jury the alternative of the offence for which he had been convicted.
Held: The question was one of law, whether a count of attempted murder either expressly or impliedly amounted to or included an allegation of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. The distinction lay in the mens rea. One offence required an intention to kill, the other an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Various situations were considered, but the court concluded that there could not be an intention to kill without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The alternative would allow a defendant accused of attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, the defence of saying that he had intended to kill.

Judges:

Woolf LCJ, Roderick Evans, Royce. JJ

Citations:

Times 04-Jun-2003, Gazette 10-Jul-2003

Statutes:

Criminal Law Act 1967 6(2) 6(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins HL 1983
The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the . .
CitedRegina v Adebayo CACD 7-Jul-1997
The defendant had been employed in the probate registry, and sought by deception to conspire with others to use the information he obtained to obtain money from estates. He appealed, saying that the court should not have convicted him of obtaining . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183242

In re Ronald A Prior and Co (Solicitors): 1996

Citations:

[1996] Cr App R 248

Cited by:

CitedWasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997) CACD 2-Sep-1999
Witness orders for the production of documents in the speculative hope that they might contain matters of assistance should be discouraged, and particularly so in respect of documents held by social services departments. This should now be well . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Legal Professions

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183205

Regina v Henry: 1968

Citations:

(1968) 53 Cr App Rep 150

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Rennie Gilbert PC 21-Mar-2002
(Grenada) The defendant had successfully appealed a conviction for attempted rape. He said that he had been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant, and that the judge should have given an appropriate warning to the jury. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182781