Tag: Crime

Atkinson v Regina: CACD 7 Nov 2003

The appellant had been convicted of false accounting in the making of false claims for payment for prescriptions, submitting forms which said that the patient was over 60 when she knew they were not. She said she filled the forms in mechanically.
Held: The judge was correct. Counsel was wrong to concentrate on the mens rea at the time when the forms were completed. At issue also was the time when the forms were submitted for payment. The second complaint was at to the abence of a Ghosh direction. The judge explicitly said that, if the appellant acted as she did because she was careless or under stress, she would be not guilty. A Ghosh direction was unnecessary.

Judges:

Lord Justice May Mr Justice Roderick Evans And His Honour Judge Jeremy Roberts Q.C.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3031

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 17(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 – Regina v Hancock and Shankland HL 27-Feb-1985
Two miners on strike had pushed a concrete block from a bridge onto a three-lane highway on which a miner was being taken to work by taxi. The concrete block hit the taxi and killed the driver. The defendants were charged with murder. They said they . .
Cited – Regina v Woollin HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his child. He had thrown the child to the floor, hitting the head. He said that he had not intended to kill the child.
Held: On a murder charge, where the short direction on . .
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187597

Todd v Crown Prosecution Service; T v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another; Todd v DPP: QBD 6 Oct 2003

The defendant had been under 18 at the commencement of proceedings but attained 18 during them. The newspaper was granted leave to refer to him by name upon his becoming 18.
Held: Denying the appeal. The balance between the freedom of the press and the protection of youths had to be maintained properly. Once the purpose of the protection had passed, it should not be applied. The purpose of the legislation was not to protect the interests of young persons after they ceased to be young persons.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Sullivan J

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-2003, [2003] EWHC 2408 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Webster and Others v Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 5-Feb-2010
The claimant had been severely injured when attacked at school. He was a white youth, and his attackers all Asian. The school had a history of inter-racial tension, and he claimed in negligence, and that they had failed to protect his human right . .
Cited – Webster and Others v The Governors of the Ridgeway Foundation School QBD 21-May-2009
The first claimant had been severely beaten as he left school. He and his parents also claimed post traumatic stress. They alleged that the school had been negligent in having allowed racial tensions to develop. The claimant was white, and his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media, Crime

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187195

Jolie 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 car.
Held: The jury must be required to deal first with possession. The words of the act must be given their ordinary meaning. Forgetfulness alone was not a good reason, but the circumstances might make it such. Forgetfulness can be part of a good reason.
Kennedy LJ doubted the reasoning in Gregson, saying: ‘We have set out . . to demonstrate the reasoning, which we do not find entirely persuasive. If the defendant had a good reason for having the knife on him six days earlier, when did that good reason cease? Did it cease as soon as he returned home from work? What if he called at a public house on the way? What was it about the new statutory wording which prevented the tribunal of fact from considering not only the alleged forgetfulness but also the reason given for the knife being where it was, and the time involved, when deciding whether or not the defendant had established the statutory defence? If Gregson was rightly decided, it would seem to follow that a parent who, having bought a kitchen knife, put it in the glove compartment of a car out of reach of a child, and then forgot to retrieve it when he arrived home would be committing an offence next time he drove the vehicle on a public road. That does not seem to us to be what Parliament intended.’ and ‘Accordingly in our judgment where a defendant does seek to rely on section 139(4) the fact finding tribunal should be left free to consider whether in the circumstances the defendant has shown that he had a good reason for having the article with him in a public place. If forgetfulness is relied upon it does need to be said that alone it cannot constitute a good reason, but otherwise no legal direction is required.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hunt And Mr Justice Pitchers

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1543, Times 30-May-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R 3, (2003) 167 JP 313, [2003] Crim LR 730

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Martindale CACD 1986
Possession does not depend upon the alleged possessor’s powers of memory. Nor does possession come and go as memory revives or fails. ‘In the judgment of this court [that the argument that lack of memory or knowledge negatives possession is . .
Cited – Cugullere, Regina v 1961
The defendant had been driving a motor-van when he was stopped by the police. In the back of the van there were found three pickaxe handles bound with adhesive tape. His defence was that he did not know that the implements were in the back of his . .
Cited – Buswell, Regina v CACD 1972
The defendant was accused of possession of drugs. The drugs in question had been medically prescribed by the defendant’s doctor. After he had taken them home he genuinely thought that they had been accidentally destroyed by his mother when washing . .
Cited – Brutus 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 . .
Doubted – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Glidewell CACD 4-May-1999
Forgetfulness might be relevant as a defence on a charge of possessing an offensive weapon. A taxi driver discovered weapons left by a passenger, but forgot having placed them in a glove compartment.
Held: The Appeal was allowed.
Cited – McCalla, 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 – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chahal 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: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182598

Mallin v Procurator Fiscal: HCJ 15 Aug 2002

The appellant challenged his conviction for having allowed a police search without disclosing that he had about his person a concealed used syringe.

Judges:

Lord McLuskey

Citations:

[2002] ScotHC 101, 2002 GWD 26-885, 2002 SLT 1202, 2002 SCCR 901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181720

R v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another: HCJ 31 May 2002

Citations:

[2002] ScotHC 67

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – R v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another PC 1-Nov-2002
Section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. It is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181694

Paria v The State: PC 15 Apr 2003

PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for an unprovoked serious assault after the judge had failed to give a propensity direction.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscot, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2003] UKPC 36, [2004] Crim LR 228

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Maye v The Queen PC 1-Jul-2008
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He said that he had intervened in a fight between his girlfriend and her brother and that the deceased was killed in self defence. There had been three trials; two of the defendant and two . .
Cited – 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

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181036

Criminal Proceedings against Hoffmann (Judgment): ECJ 3 Apr 2003

The defendant concert promoter appealed against a conviction for evading VAT. He had employed a solo performer but failed to account for VAT on his fees.
Held: The intent of the directive was to allow exemption of cultural workers. An individual performer could be counted as a ‘body’ within the directive and have exemption. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

C-144/00, Times 17-Apr-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-144/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive 77/338/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of turnover taxes

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT, Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180809

Regina v Rogers: CACD 14 Mar 2003

The defendant appealed a conviction for manslaughter and assault under the 1861 Act. He held a belt around a friend’s arm whilst the friend injected heroin into his own vein. The friend later died from the overdose. He said the use of the tourniquet was not itself unlawful.
Held: The application of the tourniquet was part and parcel of the injection, which was itself unlawful. The tourniquet could not be looked at in isolation, its purpose was to raise a vein to assist the fatal injection. Nothing in Dias was inconsistent with that. Rose VP focused on whether the defendant’s conduct was as principal or as a secondary party. The application of the tourniquet should not be considered in isolation: ‘It is artificial and unreal to separate the tourniquet from the injection. The purpose and effect of the tourniquet, plainly, was to raise a vein in which the deceased could insert the syringe. Accordingly, by applying and holding the tourniquet, the defendant was playing a part in the mechanics of the injection which caused death. It is therefore, as it seems to us, immaterial whether the deceased was committing a criminal offence. . . A fortiori, as it seems to us, a person who actively participates in the injection process commits the actus reus and can have no answer to an offence under section 23 or a charge of manslaughter if death results. Once the [defendant] is categorised as such a participant, it being common ground that death resulted from the injection, no question arises in relation to causation.’

Judges:

Rose LJ, Gross, Pitchers JJ

Citations:

Times 20-Mar-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1374

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Offences against the Persons Act 1861 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – Regina v Kennedy CACD 31-Jul-1998
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter having handed a loaded a syringe with heroin and handed it to a friend who injected himself, and later died.
Held: The defendant had gone beyond the minimum necessary for criminal liability. All it . .
Cited – Regina v Dias CACD 13-Dec-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter. Both the deceased and the defendant had injected themselves with syringes prepared by D. The judge directed the jury that the self-injection of the heroin by the deceased was an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kennedy v Regina CACD 17-Mar-2005
The court considered when it was appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a Class A controlled drug, which is then self administered by the person to whom it is supplied, and the . .
Cited – Regina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180387

Grundy and Co Excavations Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Halton Division Magistrates Court: Admn 24 Feb 2003

A reverse legal burden applied to defendants accused of an offence under section 17 of the Forestry Act 1967 which, in specified circumstances, created an absolute offence of felling a tree without a felling licence. Clarke LJ said: ‘It is thus clear that, while the general principles are those set out in Edwards, each case depends upon the construction of the particular statute. The question in each case will be whether the provision concerned is an ‘exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification’ within the meaning of section 101 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. It is also clear from Hunt, and indeed from the express terms of section 101, that in such a case ‘the burden of proving the exception, proviso, excuse or qualification, shall be on the defendant’.
As I read the decision in Hunt, the House rejected the submission that any burden on the accused should be construed as evidential and not legal . . Lord Griffiths rejected the submission in this way . .
‘My Lords, I am, of course well aware of the body of distinguished opinion that urges that wherever a burden of proof is placed upon a defendant by statute the burden should be an evidential burden and not a persuasive burden, and that it has the support of the 11th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, Evidence (General) 1972 (Cmnd 4991). My Lords, such a fundamental change is, in my view, a matter for Parliament and not a decision for your Lordships’ House.’
It is thus quite clear that where, applying the principles in Edwards and Hunt and the provisions of section 101 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 there is a burden on the accused, it is a legal burden and not an evidential burden.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 272 (Admin), [2003] 1 PLR 89

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Forestry Act 1967 9(1), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Edwards 1975
On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ licence, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no licence but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a . .
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 by:

Cited – Clarke v Regina CACD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for providing immigration services when not qualified to do so. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179691

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Feb 2003

The defendant challenged the application of the section, under which he was deemed to have intended to drive a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol, unless he could prove it was not his intent to drive, saying this infringed his right to a fair trial.
Held: The section must be read down to comply with the Convention. The burden to be placed on a defendant was the evidential burden only, and not the legal burden. Once he raised the issue, and pointed to some evidence that there was no likelihood of his driving, the burden of proving there was some real risk of him driving must fall on the prosecution. It was not necessary to impose the legal burden of proof on the defendant.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Henriques Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 273 (Admin), Gazette 03-Apr-2003, [2004] QB 487

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6.2, Road Traffic Act 1988 5(8)

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 CACD 21-Mar-2003
The defendant had been tried for an offence under the Act of being a member of a proscribed organisation, and professing membership of Hamas. At trial the Crown accepted an evidential burden, that the offence had to be read down to comply with the . .
Appeal from – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights, Road Traffic

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179573

Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills: QBD 7 Mar 2003

The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human rights.
Held: Although the offence is one of strict liability, there is no reversal of the burden of proof. Article 6(2) has no bearing on the reduction or elimination of mens rea requirements, and is therefore compatible with offences of strict or even absolute liability. The section engaged article 6.2 but was compliant. Authorities should however be careful before exercising their discretion to prosecute.
Elias J said: ‘I recognise that the penalties are small, being only a fine, and that is a factor which can properly be considered when determining whether an offence of strict liability is justified. However, in my opinion there is nonetheless a real stigma attached to being found guilty of a criminal offence of this nature. It suggests either an indifference to one’s children, or incompetence at parenting, which in the case of the blameless parent will be unwarranted.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Elias, The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 418 (Admin), Times 20-Mar-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2318

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 444(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Regina v Daniel CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction . .
Cited – Matthews v Ministry of Defence HL 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages against the Crown, having suffered asbestosis whilst in the armed forces. He challenged the denial to him of a right of action by the 1947 Act.
Held: Human rights law did not create civil rights, but rather voided . .
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sutton London Borough Council v S and Another QBD 26-Oct-2004
Parents had had charges brought against them by the appellant for failing to ensure the attendance of their child at school dismissed. The authority appealed.
Held: The authority should have considered more carefully whether it was appropriate . .
Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited – London Borough of Sutton v S Admn 26-Oct-2004
The Borough appealed against acquittal by the magistrates of the defendant parent accused of failure to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. The child had attended only irregularly. The parents had contacted the school and . .
Cited – Isle of Wight Council v Platt Admn 13-May-2016
The Council appealed by case stated against a decision by magistrates that a parent who took his child out of school to take a holiday hod not failed to ensure that the child attended regularly. The record was otherwise regular and satisfactory.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179544

R v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another: PC 1 Nov 2002

Section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. It is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of any particular violation of an individual’s Convention rights should be. Parliament has decided that members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate, should have no power to do acts that are incompatible with any of the Convention rights.

Judges:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 56

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Scotland Act 1998 57(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – R v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another HCJ 31-May-2002
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Sinclair v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 11-May-2005
(Devolution) The defendant complained that the prosecutor had failed to disclose all the witness statements taken, which hid inconsistencies in their versions of events.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was fundamental to a fair trial that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178864

Regina v Murray: CACD 24 Jan 2003

The applicant appealed against her convictions in 1989 after a referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The case against her had been made by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, with officers who had later been discredited, and super-grasses who had also been discredited.
Held: Various appeals had been successful or rejected over the years on similar grounds. It was clear in this case that the jury had considered the evidence, and rejected cases against other defendants where the case was not corroborated. The appellants case did have corroboration, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Douglas Brown Mrs Justice Hallett

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 27

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178795

Bamber v Regina: CACD 12 Dec 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright, Mr Justice Henriques

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 2912

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
See Also – Bamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178398

Webb v Beavan: 25 Jan 1844

In trespass for entering a yard, thc defendant was allowed to plead that he entered for the purpose of viewing a mare then in a stable in the yard, which had been recently stolen from him.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 160, (1844) 6 Man and G 1055, (1844) 134 ER 1220

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.304752

In re G and S: CACD 11 Jul 2002

The defendants had been acquitted on the direction of the judge at trial, and the AG now appealed on a point of law, namely: ‘Whether on (a) a charge under section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and (b) a charge under section 17(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, where the accused has used a false instrument or furnished false information with a view to obtaining money or other property it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused had no legal entitlement to the money or other property in question’
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2003] 1 Cr App R 8, [2002] EWCA Crim 1768, [2002] 3 All ER 840, [2002] Crim LR 845, [2003] 1 WLR 395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175258

Goatley v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of the Netherlands: QBD 20 Jun 2002

The second respondent sought the extradition of the applicant for trial for drugs offences. He said that the alleged offences were extra terratorial to the second defendant, but that extradition was restricted to intra territorial offences.
Held: The importing of cannabis is an intra-territorial offence, as is a conspiracy to commit that offence. There was jurisdiction, and the request for habeas corpus failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Nelson J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1209 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Regina v Wall 1974
The charge was fraudulent evasion of the restriction on importation of dangerous drugs. For that offence to be committed, the drugs in question must necessarily arrive in this country.
Held: If sending a letter from abroad to England . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174118

Leslie Tiwari v The State (Appeal No 76 of 2001): PC 29 May 2002

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed convictions for rape and other offences based upon identification evidence. He had not been represented at the trial. He had not been warned of his freedom to call witnesses.
Held: Where a defendant was unrepresented, the court should warn him of the advisability of having professional representation. Witnesses whose evidence might have been called by him would have given admissible and relevant evidence. The case was remitted for that evidence to be admitted, and the conviction re-examined by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. Time spent in prison after a notice of appeal has been lodged with the Board, should count toward time served.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt

Citations:

[2002] UKPC 29, (Appeal No 76 of 2001)

Links:

PC, PC, Leslie Tiwari v. The S’ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
Cited – Regina v Carter (Josef) 1960
The defendant appealed against his conviction. Though unrepresented at trial, the judge had not informed him of his opportunity to call witnesses. Counsel had failed to attend and an adjournment has been refused.
Held: The appeal succeeded. A . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kumar Ali v The State (Appeal 56 of 2004) and Leslie Tiwari v The State PC 2-Nov-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked to determine the date from which an unsuccessful appellant’s sentence should run. Pending an appeal or whilst on remand, a prisoner would be held in less demanding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Commonwealth, Evidence

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172279

Scarsbrook Or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 7 Jun 2001

Judges:

Lord Justice General

Citations:

[2001] ScotHC 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Sep-2000
The purpose of orders under the section is to deal with reports of proceedings which are fair and accurate, but which should nonetheless be postponed, not with other material the publication of which might constitute a contempt of Court. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty’s Advocate (No.2) HCJ 21-Jun-2001
The court considered the defence of diminished responsibility to a charge of murder.
Held: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: ‘It is, of course, impossible to attempt to describe the ambit of the doctrine of diminished responsibility without even . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170591

Brown v Procurator Fiscal, Falkirk: HCJ 8 Mar 2002

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the machine used to take his sample of breath did not conform to the necessary type. It had been manufactured by an independent company. Though not approved it was identical to the approved machine. He was convicted on the basis that approval was of a type of a machine, not of a machine.

Judges:

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Hamilton and Lord Morison

Citations:

[2002] ScotHC 25

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Chief Constable of Northumbria v Brown 1986
The defendant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. He challenged the use of a machine for the breath test which was not an Intoximeter.
Held: The charge was valid. . .

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170500