Tag: Crime

Case XI 1 Cr 315, 340, 438, 9, 448 14 Jac Cr 404, Rice’s Case Trial, Justices De Peace: 1220

An indictment of barretry at the sessions of the peace may be tried the same day of the indictment found. Judged and affirmed in error. The barretor was fined 40l. and imprisoned.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 5, (1220-1623) Jenk 317, (1220) 145 ER 230 (G)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.460917

Regina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin: CACD 7 Dec 1993

The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that the terms of the statute in section 3(1) do have to be read in the way that we indicated at the start of this judgment. In other words, when one encounters the words in section 3(1) — ‘dangerously out of control’ — one applies the meaning which is set out in section 10(3) and that means, in effect, that if a dog is in a public place, if the person accused is shown to be the owner of the dog, if the dog is dangerously out of control in the sense that the dog is shown to be acting in a way that gives grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure anyone, liability follows. Of course, if injury does result then, on the face of it, there must have been, immediately before the injury resulted, grounds for reasonable apprehension that injury would occur.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 1057

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1) 3(2)(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 3-Feb-2014
The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now . .
Cited – Rafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1997
The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the . .
Cited – Gedminintaite, Regina v CACD 15-Feb-2008
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Crime

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.86129

Regina v Sanchez: CACD 6 Mar 1996

The defendant had been convicted of an affray when she had lunged at her boyfriend with a knife in a car park.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A ‘person of reasonable firmness’ who must be concerned for an affray offence to be committed, must be a third party, and not the victim of the affray. The trial judge had failed to direct the jury to consider whether a reasonable hypothetical bystander would have feared for his personal safety.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-1996, [1996] Crim LR 572

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – I v Director of Public Prosecutions etc HL 8-Mar-2001
A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87669

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

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Her 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.

Crime

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547553

Jenkins v Howells: KBD 1949

A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the result of ‘any unavoidable cause’ by reference to the Act. The Divisional Court rejected that contention and held that ‘unavoidable cause’, like sickness, must be in relation to the child and not the parent.

Citations:

[1949] 2 KB 218

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) Admn 20-Oct-2000
The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.179637

Her Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley: PC 15 Jun 2005

(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions of the House as to provocation.
Held: The defence of provocation has two ingredients. The first, subjective or factual, ingredient, is that the defendant was provoked into losing his self-control. In deciding whether this ingredient exists in a particular case all evidence which is probative is admissible, including evidence of any mental or other abnormality making it more or less likely that the defendant lost his self-control. The second ingredient, the objective or evaluative ingredient, raises, in the language of the statute, ‘the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did . . [taking] into account everything both done and said according to the effect . . it would have on a reasonable man’. This ingredient has two elements. The first element calls for an assessment of the gravity of the provocation. The second element calls for application of an external standard of self-control: ‘whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did’.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (Majority): Whilst the approach taken in Smith (Morgan) might be attractive, it was not accurate: ‘ The law of homicide is a highly sensitive and highly controversial area of the criminal law. In 1957 Parliament altered the common law relating to provocation and declared what the law on this subject should thenceforth be. In these circumstances it is not open to judges now to change (‘develop’) the common law and thereby depart from the law as declared by Parliament. ‘ and ‘Under the statute the sufficiency of the provocation (‘whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as [the defendant] did’) is to be judged by one standard, not a standard which varies from defendant to defendant. Whether the provocative act or words and the defendant’s response met the ‘ordinary person’ standard prescribed by the statute is the question the jury must consider, not the altogether looser question of whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the jury consider the loss of self-control was sufficiently excusable. The statute does not leave each jury free to set whatever standard they consider appropriate in the circumstances by which to judge whether the defendant’s conduct is ‘excusable’. ‘ and ‘In expressing their conclusion above their Lordships are not to be taken as accepting that the present state of the law is satisfactory. It is not. The widely held view is that the law relating to provocation is flawed to an extent beyond reform by the courts . . . Their Lordships share this view.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2005] UKPC 23, Times 21-Jun-2005, [2005] 3 WLR 29

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camplin HL 1978
The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should . .
Cited – Regina v Morhall HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation.
Cited – Rex v Kirkham 1837
In order to reduce Killing of a person to the crime of manslaughter, there must not only be sufficient provocation, but the jury must be satisfied that the fatal blow was given in consequence of that provocation. If A. had formed a deliberate design . .
Wrongly Decided – Regina v Smith (Morgan James) HL 27-Jul-2000
The defendant had sought to rely upon the defence of provocation. He had suffered serious clinical depression.
Held: When directing a jury on the law of provocation, it was no longer appropriate to direct the jury to disregard any particular . .
Cited – Regina v Welsh 1869
The judge directed the jury as to provocation saying that in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter, there should have been serious provocation, ‘something which might naturally cause an ordinary and reasonably minded man to lose his self-control . .
Cited – Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen PC 2-Apr-1996
(Hong Kong) On a trial for murder the defendant relied on the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation. Medical evidence showed the defendant suffered from brain damage and was prone to respond to minor provocation by losing his . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Regina v Duffy CCA 1949
The court approved Devlin J’s direction to the jury on the defence of provocation to a charge of murder which had described provocation: ‘Provocation is some act or series of acts done or words spoken by the dead man to the accused which would cause . .
Cited – Regina v Raven CACD 1982
The 22-year old defendant had a mental age of 9 years. He said it was inappropriate when judging the availability of the defence of provocation to a charge of murder to ignore that fact. The Recorder of London ruled that, having regard to the test . .
Cited – Regina v Ahluwalia CACD 31-Jul-1992
The appellant sought substitution of a conviction for manslaughter of her husband for that of his murder. She had long suffered violent treatment by him. She had not raised the issue of diminished responsibility at trial.
Held: The court . .

Cited by:

Cited – Van Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Preferred – Mohammed, Regina v CACD 13-Jul-2005
The court granted permission to appeal against a conviction for murder on grounds that related to the judge’s summing up in respect of provocation: ‘Although Holley is a decision of the Privy Council and Morgan Smith a decision of the House of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.226982

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 23 May 1935

Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent

The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to allow this, and wrote a suicide note, but when attempting to show what he intended, the gun went off killing her. He denied intending to harm her. The judge directed the jury ‘The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification. ‘In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, unless the contrary appeareth.”
Held: The ‘golden thread’ of British justice is that it is for the prosecution to prove an offence against the defendant. ‘Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.’ and ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’ However the rule is subject to exceptions created by statute.
Viscount Sankey LC: ‘If at any period of a trial it was permissible for the judge to rule that the prosecution had established its case and that the onus was shifted on the prisoner to prove that he was not guilty and that unless he discharged that onus the prosecution was entitled to succeed, it would be enabling the judge in such a case to say that the jury must in law find the prisoner guilty and so make the judge decide the case and not the jury, which is not the common law.’

Judges:

Viscount Sankey LC, Lord Hewart LC, Lord Atkin, Lord Tomlin, and Lord Wright

Citations:

[1935] AC 462, [1935] UKHL 1, (1935) 5 New Zealand Police Law Reports 492, 104 LJKB 433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1907 1 4, Criminal Evidence Act 1898

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Daniel MNaghtens Case HL 1843
Daniel M’Naghten suffered from a mental disorder under which he believed that he was being persecuted by various bodies in authority, including the Tory Party. He sought to kill the Tory Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, but shot and killed instead . .
Cited – Mackalley’s case 1611
If an officer or magistrate is killed when executing a process or preserving the peace, the offence is murder and remains so even if there is some defect in the process being executed, or the arrest was being made at night.
Constables were . .
Cited – Rex v Greenacre 1837
Once the prosecution has established that one person has died at the hand of another, it is for the defedant to establish by evidence or inference form the circumstances some excuse or mitigation to reduce the charge from murder. . .
Cited – Rex v Legg 1674
. .
Cited – Rex v Davies 1913
The consent of the Attorney General was not required to prosecute an offender under the 1901 Act. . .
Cited – Rex v Stoddart 1909
. .
Cited – Rex v Oneby 1727
Where A and B have a sudden violent quarrel, and later, after tempers should have cooled, A kills B, that is murder. If A says he will revenge himself on B, or will have his blood, that is express malice. The fact of killing is prima facie murder. . .
Cited – Rex v Schama; Rex v Abramovitch CCA 1914
Where the defendant was charged with receiving stolen goods well knowing them to be stolen, the onus of proof lies always on the prosecution. Once the prosection has established that the defendant was in possession of goods recently stolen, the jury . .
Cited – Lawrence v The King PC 1933
Lord Atkin said: ‘[A]n essential principle of our criminal law that the trial for an indictable offence has to be conducted in the presence of the accused; and for this purpose trial means the whole of the proceedings, including sentence.’ . .
Cited – Rex -v Sanders 1919
. .
Cited – Rex v Grinberg 1917
. .
Cited – Rex v Aubrey 1915
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
Cited – George Worme Grenada Today Limited v The Commissioner of Police PC 29-Jan-2004
PC (Grenada) The defendant was editor of a newspaper which carried a story severely defamatory of the prime minister. He was convicted of criminal libel, and appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The . .
Cited – Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1941
There are exceptional cases to the rule in Woolmington for: ‘offences where onus of proof is specially dealt with by statute’. ‘There is no reason to repeat to the jury the warning as to reasonable doubt again and again, provided that the direction . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – B (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 . .
Cited – Michael Yearwood v The Queen PC 26-Jun-2001
PC (Grenada) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He claimed a misdirection on provocation.
Held: The judge’s direction had been over elaborate, and gave too much weight to the old law. . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Wang, Regina v HL 10-Feb-2005
The appellant was waiting for a train when his bag was stolen. After a search, the thief tried to deter the appellant from calling the police by suggesting that the bag contained items the appellant should not be carrying. From the bag the appellant . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
Cited – Clarke v Regina CACD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for providing immigration services when not qualified to do so. . .
Cited – Regina v Moloney HL 21-Mar-1984
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder.
Held: The appeal was allowed and a conviction for manslaughter substituted.
Lord Bridge of Harwich discussed the case of Hyam: ‘But looking on their facts at the decided cases . .
Cited – Sweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.179641

Regina v Mitchell: CACD 1993

Citations:

[1993] Crim LR 788

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Duru CACD 1974
The defendants were accused of involvement in mortgage frauds perpetrated on a local authority. The advances were made by cheque, and the defendants were charged with obtaining the cheques by deception. The principal question for consideration was . .

Cited by:

Wrongly decided – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.248440

Fitzgerald, Regina v: CACD 6 Mar 1998

The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery. At interview, his solicitor had explained his failure to answer questions by reference to the involvement of others, but in terms which treated this itself as an admission.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the terms of the summing-up, as a whole, indicated plainly to the jury that it was for them and not for the judge to decide what had happened. He made it plain to them that unless they were sure that a robbery had taken place, they must acquit the defendant. ‘

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Hidden, Penry-Davey JJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Crim 829

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Christie HL 1914
The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion . .
Cited – Regina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
Cited – Regina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.465033

Dawes and Others v Regina: CACD 26 Mar 2013

The defendants appealed their respective convictions for murder, saying that they had been provoked, and that their judges had wrongly directed their juries as to what amounted to qualifying trigger under the 2009 Act, which had replaced the former provocation defence.
Held: Each appeal was rejected.
To raise the defence, the defendant had to establish three elements; that his actions resulted from his loss of self control (not now necessarily sudden), that there was a ‘qualifying trigger’, and that another in his circumstances might have reacted similarly. The court was now concerned as to the second issue. The court emphasised that the issue should not be elided with an issue of self defence.
The presence of such a threat, that it was extremely grave, and the defendant felt so seriously wronged so as to justify his actions, was not to be defined by the defendant’s assertions. These were for the objective assessment by the judge after the evidence.

Judges:

Lord Judge CJ, Rafferty LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 322, [2014] 1 WLR 947, [2013] 3 All ER 308, [2013] WLR(D) 130, [2013] Crim LR 770, [2013] 2 Cr App R 3

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54 55

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472033

Evans, Regina v: CACD 23 Jan 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction in a case concerning the use of a false passport. The central issue was whether the appellant had a defence based upon the proposition that he was a refugee entitled to asylum in this country. He had been deported to Jamaica, but returned with a forged passport which was detected on entry. The court had rejected his argument that he was a refugee entitled to protection after fleeing gangs in Jamaica.
Held: On the evidence before the jury, there was no possible basis for classifying the appellant as a refugee.

Judges:

Jackson LJ, Wyn Williams J, Beaumont QC HHJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 125, [2013] WLR(D) 22

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees made at Geneva in 1951, Identity Documents Act 2010 4, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Acosta 1985
US Board of Immigration Appeals –
Held: ‘We find the well-established doctrine of ejusdem generis, meaning literally, ‘of the same kind,’ to be most helpful in construing the phrase ‘membership in a particular social group.’ That doctrine . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Immigration

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471585

Lukstins v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 14 Nov 2012

The appellant challenged his conviction for sexual crimes, saying that the taking of a swab from his mouth for a DNA test had been unlawful, and the evidence consequent to that should not have been admitted.
Held: The appeal was refused. Cowie was overturned.

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Menzies, Lord Brodie,
Lord Doherty

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 146, 2013 JC 124, 2012 SCCR 787, 013 GWD 1-11, 2013 SCL 61, 2013 SLT 11, [2012] HCJAC 146

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Saunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471092

European Commission v Planet Ae: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

ECJ Appeals – Protection of the financial interests of the European Union – Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity – Early warning system – OLAF investigation – Decisions – Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings – Reviewable measures – Admissibility

Judges:

A. Tizzano, P

Citations:

C-314/11, [2012] EUECJ C-314/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Crime

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468771

Regina v Sinclair: 1968

The defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud a company, its shareholders and creditors by fraudulently using its assets for purposes other than those of the company and by fraudulently concealing such use.
Held: James J said: ‘To cheat and defraud is to act with deliberate dishonesty to the prejudice of another person’s proprietary right’.

Judges:

James J

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1246

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.324674

Mohammed, Regina v; Regina v Osman: CACD 16 Oct 2007

When a court considered a case involving a question of whether an asylum applicant who had arrived in the UK without documents or with false documents, it had to balance properly the need for control over entry with the stark realities which faced a person fleeing persecution.
Held: section 2(13) did not define a ‘false immigration document’ by contrast with an ‘immigration document’. Rather, a ‘false immigration document’ was a sub-species of an ‘immigration document’. In that way the reference in section 2(4)(c) encompassed both a genuine and a false immigration document. The immigrant is required to provide a reasonable excuse for not providing any immigration document. Section 4(2)(d) enables an immigrant to produce a false immigration document and prove he used it for the whole of his journey to the United Kingdom. If either a valid or false immigration document has been destroyed or disposed of the immigrant must prove that he had reasonable grounds for doing so. Section 2(4)(e) provides a defence for the immigrant who proves that he travelled to the United Kingdom never in possession of an immigration document (whether genuine or false).

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P QBD, Elias, Griffith Williams JJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 2332, Times 17-Dec-2007, [2008] 1 WLR 1130

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) v Isleworth Crown Court Admn 31-Mar-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.260055

Waghorn v Care Quality Commission: Admn 11 Jul 2012

W, a registered medical practitioner, appealed by way of case stated against the decision that he had carried on an independent hospital without being registered in respect of it under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000, contrary to section 11 (1) of that Act.

Judges:

Cox DBE J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1816 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health Professions, Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462911

RP 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 pickpocketing and such like, in which there is no direct physical contact between thief and victim. It cannot be said that the minimal use of force required to remove a cigarette from between the fingers of a person suffices to amount to the use of force on that person. It cannot cause any pain unless, perhaps, the person resists strongly, in which case one would expect inevitably that there would be direct physical contact between the thief and victim as well. The unexpected removal of a cigarette from between the fingers of a person is no more the use of force on that person than would be the removal of an item from her pocket. This offence is properly categorised as simple theft.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2013] 1 WLR 2337, [2012] EWHC 1657 (Admin), [2013] Crim LR 151, [2013] 1 Cr App R 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dawson and James CACD 1977
At Liverpool Pier Head a sailor on shore leave waiting for the ferry was surrounded by two men, one standing on either side of him, who nudged him on the shoulder, causing him to lose his balance. While trying to keep his balance, a third man got . .
Cited – Regina v Clouden CACD 1987
The appellant approached a woman who was carrying a shopping basket in her left hand from behind and wrenched it down and out of her grasp with both hands and ran off with it. He was convicted of robbery.
Held: His appeal was dismissed.
‘The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461875

Regina v Parole Board, ex Parte Watson: CA 11 Mar 1996

The test as to whether there was still a need to protect the public safety from the defendant was just as appropriate when considering the revocation of a licence, as it was when the need for continued detention was being reviewed before the grant of the licence: ‘In exercising its practical judgment the Board is . . balancing the hardship and injustice of continuing to imprison a man who is unlikely to cause serious injury to the public against the need to protect the public against a man who is not unlikely to cause such injury. In other than a clear case this is bound to be a difficult and very anxious judgment. But in the final balance the Board is bound to give preponderant weight to the need to protect innocent members of the public against any significant risk of serious injury.’ The Parole Board, in exercising this very important function, is an independent and impartial tribunal for purposes of article 6(1) of the European Convention. It is the primary decision-maker, and is not entitled to defer to the opinion of the Secretary of State or a probation officer.

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 44, [1996] 1 WLR 906

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Parole Board, Ex Parte Watson QBD 22-Nov-1995
The test for whether or not to recall a lifer who was free on licence is the same test as was used for his release, namely whether his detention was required for the protection of the public. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Parole Board CA 28-Jul-2004
The discretionary life-prisoner faced a parole board. The Secretary of State wished to present evidence, but wanted the witness to be protected. The Parole Board appointed special counsel to hear the evidence on behalf of the prisoner on terms that . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – McClean, Re HL 7-Jul-2005
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina (Gulliver) v Parole Board CA 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had been released on licence, and recalled. He complained that the parole board had, in considering his re-release taken into account circumstances beyond those which had directly caused his recall.
Held: The prisoner’s appeal . .
Cited – Brooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Crime

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.88585

Regina v Leather: CA 24 Mar 1993

The child abduction offence may be complete without physical removal. ‘removal from lawful control’ under the Act did not import a necessary spatial element. The issue is the removal of control.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Mar-1993, (1993) 98 Cr App R 179, Times 21-Jan-1993

Statutes:

Child Abduction Act 1984 2(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Foster and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 1-Dec-2004
The child, aged 15, was living with her foster parents. The defendants took her to their address and plied her with drink. The foster parents contacted her, and she said she was returning home. When she did not return the foster parents reported her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.88528

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Marchon: CA 23 Feb 1993

It was permissible for the Home Secretary to order the deportation of a convicted drug trafficker for the public good, even though he was an EC national, and though there was nothing to suggest any propensity to commit any further offences. It was not necessary to show that the offence was so notorious as to require special treatment. The offence here was sufficiently serious to justify such an action.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993, [1993] Imm AR 384

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – B v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 18-May-2000
The claimant had come to England as a child from Italy. As an adult, he was convicted of a sexual assault against his daughter, and after release from his prison sentence of five years, he now appealed against a deportation order, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Immigration, European

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87877

Regina v Winston: CACD 24 Jul 1998

Conviction for forgery stood where defendant had claimed housing benefit with forged letter from landlord even if the contents of the forged document were in fact true and no prejudice to the council deceived had been shown.

Citations:

Times 24-Jul-1998, Gazette 09-Sep-1998

Statutes:

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88335

Regina v Aspinall: CACD 4 Feb 1999

A known schizophrenic even though certified probably fit for interview should nevertheless have present with him in interview at a police station an appropriate adult. Assessment of such an individual is beyond the skills of a custody sergeant.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-1999, Times 04-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 185

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88372

Regina v Sinha: CACD 13 Jul 1994

The course of justice may be perverted at large by the act of a defendant even though there was no particular case before the courts yet involved. Here a doctor had, through his negligence, contributed to the death of a patient. He altered computer based records in order to protect himself against being found out. At the time of the alteration, it was inevitable that a Coroner’s Inquest at least would be held.

Citations:

Times 13-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 01-Aug-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88034

Regina v Rook: CACD 29 Jan 1993

The fact that the appellant had absented himself on the day the murder was carried out by the defendant who did the killing did not amount to an unequivocal communication of the appellant’s withdrawal from the scheme contemplated at the time he gave his assistance. The offence of counselling and procuring can be committed by the giving of assistance before the full offence. As in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1993, [1993] EWCA Crim 3, [1997] Cr App R 327, [1993] 2 All ER 955, [1993] Crim LR 698

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bryce CACD 18-May-2004
The defendant said that his involvement in the murder of which he had been convicted had been secondary only. He was alleged to have transported the killer and the gun which he used to commit the murder to a caravan near the victim’s home so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87647

Regina v Simons: CACD 4 Jun 1993

The appellant had bought five consignments of drugs from a Hong Kong supplier and sold them on to an African buyer, from whom in each case he had received the purchase price which he had paid on to the supplier. He appealed confiscation orders in the amount of the sums received saying that these sums had been paid on.
Held: The appeal failed. A drug trafficking middleman is liable to a confiscation order on the receipts not just on profits. The proceeds of sale were not profit made in the sale but the sale price. It was clear that where there is a chain of contracts each purchase price is a payment. This result could not be avoided by treating the intermediary as a postman, and those acting as a conduit should not be treated differently.

Citations:

Times 04-Jun-1993, (1993) 98 Cr App R 100

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Offenders Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Regina v Green HL 14-May-2008
The appellant had been found to have received criminal proceeds along with another. He appealed against an order making him liable for the full amount.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s argument did not face the finding that he had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88027

Regina v Mitchell and King: CACD 16 Sep 1998

A defendant would sufficiently disassociate himself from a violent joint enterprise by communicating his withdrawal to the co-accused, only when the violent element was not pre-planned. Otherwise it was not sufficient merely to withdraw.

Citations:

Times 07-Oct-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Regina v Whitehouse 1941
(British Columbia) The court asked when a party to a joint enterprise may claim to have abandoned or withdrawn from that enterprise ‘Can it be said on the facts of this case that a mere change of mental intention and a quitting of the scene of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87373

Regina v Morhall: CACD 23 Aug 1993

A self induced addiction to glue sniffing is inconsistent with a reasonable man. Judge to say if a characteristic is consistent with the reasonable man test for the purposes of judging provocation.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Oct-1993, Ind Summary 23-Aug-1993, Times 17-Aug-1993

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Morhall HL 21-Jul-1995
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87384

Regina v Kingston: CACD 10 May 1993

The defendant and a co-accused had sexually assaulted a boy. He appealed saying that the co-defendant had secretly administered drugs to him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Involuntary intoxication can be a sufficient defence to a criminal charge, since it has the effect of denying mens rea. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘In our judgment, the question can be answered by turning to first principles. The importance of ensuring, under a system of law, that members of the community are safeguarded in their persons and property is obvious and was firmly stated in Reg. v. Majewski [1977] AC 443 (see for example the speech of Lord Edmund Davies at p 495). However, the purpose of the criminal law is to inhibit, by proscription and by penal sanction, anti-social acts which individuals may otherwise commit. Its unspoken premise is that people may have tendencies and impulses to do those things which are considered sufficiently objectionable to be forbidden. Having paedophiliac inclinations and desires is not proscribed; putting them into practice is. If the sole reason why the threshold between the two has been crossed is or may have been that the inhibition which the law requires has been removed by the clandestine act of a third party, the purposes of the criminal law are not served by nevertheless holding that the person performing the act is guilty of an offence. A man is not responsible for a condition produced ‘by stratagem, or the fraud of another.’ If therefore drink or a drug, surreptitiously administered, causes a person to lose his self control and for that reason to form an intent which he would not otherwise have formed, it is consistent with the principle that the law should exculpate him because the operative fault is not his. The law permits a finding that the intent formed was not a criminal intent or, in other words, that the involuntary intoxication negatives the mens rea. As was pointed out in argument, there is some analogy to be found here in the rationale underlying the defence of duress. While it is not necessary for the decision of this case, it appears to us that if the principle applies where the offence is one of basic intent, it should apply also where the offence is one of specific intent.

We would add that there must be evidence capable of giving rise to the defence of involuntary intoxication before a judge is obliged to leave the issue to the jury. However, once there is an evidential foundation for the defence, the burden is upon the Crown to prove that the relevant intent was formed and that notwithstanding the evidence relied on by the defence it was a criminal intent.
By answering the first of the questions put to him at the beginning of the trial in the negative, the learned judge may have inhibited a sufficient ventilation of this issue at a later stage. Further, by summing up as he did, the learned judge effectively withdrew the issue from the jury. In our judgment, that amounted to a material misdirection.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1993, Independent 11-May-1993, Times 10-May-1993, [1994] QB 81

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina 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: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87084

Regina v Klineberg; Regina v Marsden: CACD 19 Nov 1998

When money had been received on a trust to send to a stakeholder but was misappropriated, the money still belonged to the payer, and a prosecution for theft was correct. This was different from cases where money was spent for the purposes stated.

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87092

Regina v MacMaster: CACD 28 Oct 1998

The conversion of cash from one currency into another can of itself constitute the offence of facilitating the retention or control of the benefits of drug trafficking irrespective of the purpose of the conversion. The words in the statute are not limited.

Citations:

Gazette 04-Nov-1998, Times 28-Oct-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 2824

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 50(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87233

Regina v Gray, Liggins, Rowlands, Ridings: CACD 5 Aug 1994

Without an allegation of conspiracy, there are severe limitations on the use of the evidence of one defendant against other co-defendants. Evidence against one defendant was inadmissible against others without an allegation of a common enterprise.

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1994, Gazette 26-Oct-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Crime

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86756