Tag: Crime

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-Considered – Shaw 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 . .
Cited – Practice 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:

Cited – Rees 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Green, 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 . .
Cited – Doherty 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 . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – The 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 . .
Cited – Al 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Walters 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

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:

Approved – Lawrence 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 from – Regina 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 . .
Approved – Attorney-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 . .
Cited – Black-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 Limited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Dobson 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 . .
Cited – Lewis 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 . .
Cited – Phillips 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 decided – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Disapproved – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Salomon 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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.’
Cited – Whitehorn 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 . .
Cited – Tesco 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 . .
Cited – Wimpey (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:

Confirmed – 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 . .
Cited – Wheatley 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. . .
Cited – Prest 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 . .
Cited – Jetivia 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 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:

Mentioned – Rex 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. . .
Cited – The 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 – . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Palmer 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

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:

Confirmed – Regina 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’ . .
Confirmed – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wheatley 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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Director 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 followed – Director 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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Zakrzewski 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 From – Nerva 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. . .
Cited – Annabel’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:

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 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Scott 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 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:

Cited – Burns 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 . .
Cited – Chief 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:

Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – Coates, 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 . .
Cited – Coates 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 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:

Cited – Regina 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 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:

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 by:

Doubted – 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 . .
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 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 – Bayliss, 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: . .
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: 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:

Cited – Griffin 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 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 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:

Cited – Bauer 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 Also – Regina 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 from – C (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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – JTB, 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:

Cited – Regina 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:

Cited – Castle 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:

Cited – Jetivia 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

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 from – John De Freitas v The Queen PC 10-Jul-1961
(West Indies) . .
Preferred – Palmer 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:

Unpersuasive – X 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:

Cited – 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 . .
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 from – Juncal, 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 . .
Cited – X 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Winterwerp 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. . .
Cited – Johnson 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 . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 . .
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:

Cited – Cardle 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:

Cited – Manley 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:

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 . .
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:

Distinguished – Regina 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:

Cited – Attorney-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

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:

Cited – Hamilton, 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:

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

Crime, Commonwealth

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258682

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:

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

Crime

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.258681

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:

Cited – Haughton 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 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

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:

Cited – Gallagher, 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. . .
Cited – 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: 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:

Cited – 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, . .
Cited – Ashley 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 . .
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 . .
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:

Cited – West 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:

Cited – Gilbert 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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:

Distinguished – Betts 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 . .
Cited – Green 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 . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Distinguished – Hinchcliffe 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 . .
Cited – Lunt 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:

Cited – Ultraframe (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 . .
Cited – Wheatley 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. . .
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 . .
Cited – Assets 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 . .
Applied – Regina 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:

Cited – Thompson 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:

Cited – Tovey 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:

Cited – In 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:

Cited – Watson 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:

Cited – Hunter 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

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:

Cited – Director 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 followed – Regina 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:

Cited – Ibrahim 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

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

Citations:

[1996] Cr App R 248

Cited by:

Cited – Wasted 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 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:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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

Regina v Henry: 1968

Citations:

(1968) 53 Cr App Rep 150

Cited by:

Cited – Regina 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

Regina v Moore and Gooderham: 1960

The court was asked whether a firearm was ‘lethal’.
Held: Lord Parker CJ stated: ‘I think that the Justices were fully entitled to give the word lethal the sense that the injury must be of a kind which may cause death. That is the ordinary meaning of the word, but it is observed that in this connection one is not considering whether a firearm is designed or intended to cause injury of a type from which death results, but rather whether it is a weapon which, however misused, may cause injury from which death may result. Section 19 is designed to prevent, amongst other things, a weapon by firing it point blank and point blank, say, at an eye or an ear, or some particularly vulnerable part; and if it is capable of causing more than trifling and trivial injury when misused, then it is a weapon of causing injury from which death may result.’

Judges:

Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 1308

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Castle 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: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.608655

Taylor, Regina v: CACD 9 Apr 2014

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Sweeney J and HHJ Bourne-Arton

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Crim 829

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hughes, Regina v SC 31-Jul-2013
Uninsured Driver Not Guilty of Causing Death
The appellant though an uninsured driver, was driving without fault when another vehicle veered across the road. The other driver died from his injuries, and the appellant convicted of causing his death whilst uninsured. At trial he succeeded in . .
Binding – Regina v Marsh CACD 19-Jul-1996
Damage caused after the taking of a car need not be at the fault of the driver defendant for the offence of aggravated vehicle taking to have been committed by him. The sole requirement of the subsection was that the driving of the vehicle should . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Taylor, Regina v SC 3-Feb-2016
No Liability Extension on Taking Without Consent
Appeal by leave of the Court of Appeal on a point of law arising in the course of the trial of the appellant for aggravated vehicle taking, contrary to section 12A of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant had taken a vehicle without the owner’s consent, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606453

Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Woodman: 1994

Citations:

[1994] Crim LR 372

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Skelton, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester Crown Court Admn 5-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown Court could properly refuse to state a case for the opinion of the divisional court, having convicted a defendant, on her appeal from the magistrates’ court, of an offence of common assault. She was evicted from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606451

Regina v Calhaem: 1985

Once encouragement or assistance is proved to have been given, the prosecution does not have to go so far as to prove as against an accessory, that it had had a positive effect on the principle offenders conduct or on the outcome

Citations:

[1985] QB 808

Cited by:

Cited – Jogee and Ruddock (Jamaica) v The Queen SC 18-Feb-2016
Joint Enterprise Murder
(and in Privy Council) The two defendants appealed against their convictions (one in Jamaica) for murder, under the law of joint enterprise. Each had been an accessory when their accomplice killed a victim with a knife. The judge in Jogee had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.560303

Pratt v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2001

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 483

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Haque CACD 26-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against conviction under section 4(1) of the 1997 Act. It was not disputed that the prosecution had to prove (1) that there had been a course of conduct on the part of the appellant, (2) that the course of conduct had caused . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442221

JM (A Minor) v Runeckles: QBD 1984

Mann J considered the conditions for criminal responsibility in a child under 14 and said: ‘I would respectfully adopt the learned judge’s use of the phrase ‘seriously wrong’. I regard an act which a child knew to be morally wrong as being but one type of those acts which a child can appreciate to be seriously wrong. I think it is unnecessary to show that the child appreciated that his or her action was morally wrong. It is sufficient that the child appreciated the action was seriously wrong. A court has to look for something beyond mere naughtiness or childish mischief.’

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

(1984) 79 Cr AppR 255

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – JTB, 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: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.341784

Rosinski’s Case: 1824

A medical man by false pretences procuring a female to strip herself naked in his presence, under pretece of applying jis medical skills, but in reality for his own lewd gratification is guilty of common assault.

Citations:

[1824] EngR 167, (1824) 1 Lewin 208, (1824) 168 ER 1015 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.327158

Regina v Gill: CACD 21 Dec 1992

The defendant and another had vitamin C tablets which were believed to be ecstacy. The defendant was arrested on trying to sell a tablet. He appealed a conviction for conspiracy to offer to supply a controlled drug.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence was committed on the making of the offer, and irrespective of whether what he thought he would be supplying were or were not in fact controlled substances.

Judges:

McCowan LJ Schiemann and Curtis JJ

Citations:

Gazette 24-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Goodard CACD 25-Feb-1992
The defendant appealed his conviction after he was found to have offered to supply a controlled drug. At his trial he had claimed that he had not intended to supply the drug.
Held: The appeal failed. The trial judge had correctly directed the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86696

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.
Held: A verdict of manslaughter was substituted. For the test under section 3, the jury should be directed by reference to a person with ordinary self control, but otherwise with such of the defendant’s characteristics as would affect the gravity of the provocation. The personal characteristics of a defendant which might affect the gravity of provocation were to be taken in account. The exclusion of the direct effect of intoxication on susceptibility to provocation did not mean that it was excluded when the addiction may be taken into account as affecting the gravity of the provocation. Despite the express words of the statute, to speak of the degree of self-control attributable to the ordinary person is ‘certainly less likely to mislead’ than to do so with reference to the reasonable person. ‘suppose that a man who has been in prison for a sexual offence, for example rape, has after his release been taunted by another man with reference to that offence. It is difficult to see why, on ordinary principles, his characteristic or history as an offender of that kind should not be taken into account as going to the gravity of the provocation.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Times 21-Jul-1995, Gazette 31-Aug-1995, [1995] 3 WLR 330, [1995] 2 CR App R 502, [1996] AC 90

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .
Applied – 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 by:

Cited – Regina v Rowland CACD 12-Dec-2003
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He sought to have substituted a conviction for manslaughter following Smith, and in the light of evidence as to his mental characteristics.
Held: ‘in the context of the law of provocation, the . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
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).
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.87382

Regina v H (Evidence: Corroboration): HL 25 May 1995

The fact that there may have been a possibility of collusion is not sufficient to stop the admission of similar fact evidence by way of corroboration. ‘ . . the function of the trial judge is not to decide as an intellectual process whether the evidence satisfies prescribed conditions, but to strike as a matter of individual judgment, in the light of his experience and common sense, a balance between the probative value of the similar fact evidence and its potentially damaging effect.’ It is eventually for the jury to decide on the possibility of collusion in similar fact evidence in sex abuse cases.

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-1995, Independent 26-May-1995, Times 25-May-1995, [1995] 1 AC 596, [1995] 2 WLR 737, [1995] CLY 938

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v H (Evidence: Corroboration); Regina v Hepburn CACD 2-Mar-1994
The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assault on his daughter and stepdaughter. The prosecution relied upon the allegatins as similar fact evidence. The complainants denied collaboration and concoction.
Held: The jury should . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86783

Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 4 Feb 1993

The defendant claimed that a breathalyser procedure mistake vitiated the subsequent prosecution.
Held: It was essential that the motorist who was asked to provide a sample of breath be first warned that a failure to provide a specimen would make him liable to be prosecuted. Even though the motorist had not in this case been prejudiced by the omission, the evidence produced by the test was not admissible: ‘It is, therefore, in our judgment, not surprising that a strict and compulsory code is laid down as a set of pre-conditions which must be fulfilled before any specimen produced by the defendant, which may condemn him at the hearing of the charge against him, can be adduced in evidence: no matter that there may be some instances where breach of the code occasions no discernible prejudice.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-1993, [1993] RTR 209, [1993] Crim LR 968

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Russell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request . .
Cited – Wright v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 25-May-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. He complained that the device used to measure his breath at the police station, the EC/IR intoximeter, was not an approved device. The court had refused to accept evidence to . .
Cited – Edmond v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The readings on the Intoximeter were too wide apart and the officer requested a blood specimen. He complained that he had not been given a fresh warning before this request.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.84132

Regina v Mann: CACD 6 Apr 2000

The defendant having pleaded guilty to an offence under the Act, involving repeated calls to the staff of a residential home, and having been sentenced, was also made subject to a restraining order that he should not ‘contact or communicate with any member of staff’.
Held: The Act did not permit such an order, and for it was substituted an order requiring not to engage in any activity which might amount to harassment.

Citations:

Gazette 06-Apr-2000, Times 11-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others QBD 10-Nov-2004
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village.
Held: The orders made were justified with the additional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85390

Link Stores Ltd v Harrow London Borough Council: QBD 18 Feb 2001

The intention of the section was to catch those traders who sought to change the price of goods after a customer had been persuaded to enter into a purchase. Where a shop made a promise to refund the difference between the price offered and the price of similar goods available elsewhere, but failed to meet that promise, the section did not bite.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 18-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 20(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Consumer

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83079

Hussain v Bradford City Council: QBD 15 Feb 1993

If a complaint was made that a private hire vehicle was acting in contravention of the regulation, requiring it to display the licence plate issued by the local authority, indicating the maximum number of passengers, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the vehicle was plying for hire at the time of the alleged offence.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 48 (6)(b)

Local Government, Licensing, Transport, Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.81565

Director 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 purposes. They had no authority to make that request or to obtain that information for that purpose. They were only permitted to make such a request for police purposes; indeed, to obtain the information, they had to misrepresent to the computer operator the purpose of their request. The computer operator acted under an authorisation from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He was authorised to use the computer to access the data on the database at the request of police officers; he was required to ascertain and log the reason for the request. The magistrate convicted the two officers of an offence under s.1. Their appeal to the Crown Court was allowed but the prosecution requested the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court, stating four questions of law. They asked whether the Crown Court had been right in law to allow the appeal.
Held: The Crown Court decision was upheld. The defendants had only requested another to obtain information by using the computer. The computer operator himself did not exceed his authority. His authority permitted him to access the data on the computer for the purpose of responding to requests made to him in proper form by police officers. No offence had been committed. Extracting data from computer by a person who was otherwise generally authorised to use the computer, but in this case for an unauthorised purpose, does no constitute the offence of unlawful access. The purpose of the Act was to criminalise the breaking into or hacking of computer systems to preserve the ‘integrity of computer systems’. The defendants were characterised as persons who had ‘control access’ (using the word ‘control’ as a noun) ‘of the kind in question’.

Judges:

Astill J, Pill LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-1997, [1998] Cr App R 1

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990 1 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Followed – Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America QBD 13-May-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79987

Regina v Mohamed: CACD 19 Oct 2010

The court considered the defence available to a refugee under the 1999 Act when charged with the offence of having in his possession or under his control an identity document that either to his knowledge or belief is false, or to his knowledge or belief was improperly obtained or that relates to someone else.
Held: Appeals were allowed or dismissed according to the circumstances. ‘It was only in R. v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court Ex p. Adimi [2001] QB 667 that the circumstances of prosecuting for documentary offences those who claimed asylum were first considered. Simon Brown LJ considered the broad purpose of art.31 saying: ‘Self evidently it was to provide immunity for genuine refugees whose quest for asylum reasonably involved them in breaching the law. In the course of argument, Newman J suggested the following formulation: where the illegal entry or use of false documents or delay can be attributed to a bona fide desire to seek asylum whether here or elsewhere, that conduct should be covered by article 31.’
The response of the Government to this decision was to move an amendment to the Immigration and Asylum Bill then before Parliament. It was that amendment which became s.31 of the 1999 Act although it is to be noted that the legislation contains two aspects that more narrowly define the position than that advanced by Simon Brown L.J. namely, in subs.(1) the requirement that anyone claiming protection must have applied for asylum as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in subs.(2) that a refugee who has stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom must show that he could not reasonably have been expected to have been given Convention protection in that other country.

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Owen,Flaux JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2400, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Identity Cards Act 2006 25(1), Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31(3)(aa)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.444847

Regina v Ramsay and Foote: 1883

Lord Coleridge CJ directed a jury on a trial for blasphemous libel: ‘the mere denial of the truth of the Christian religion or of the Scriptures is not enough per se to constitute a writing a blasphemous libel . . But indecent and offensive attacks on Christianity or the Scriptures, or sacred persons or objects, calculated to outrage the feelings of the general body of the community, do constitute the offence of blasphemy.’ However, even the fundamentals of religion could be attacked ‘if the decencies of controversy are observed’.
. . And: ‘The law visits not the honest errors, but the malice of mankind. wilful intention to pervert, insult, and mislead others, by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt. A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equivalent to such an intention, in law, as well as moral, – a state of apathy and indifference to the interests of society, – is the broad boundary between right and wrong.’

Judges:

Lord Coleridge CJ

Citations:

(1883) 15 Cox CC 231

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Whitehouse v Lemon; Whitehouse v Gay News Ltd CA 1979
The defendants, editors and publisher respectively of ‘Gay News’ had been accused of blasphemous libel. The magazine had a poem entitled ‘The love that dare not Speak its Name’. it is not a necessary part of the offence that there should be an . .
Cited – Green, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Ecclesiastical

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261810

Regina v Ardalan: CACD 1972

The court considered the difficulty of dealing with ‘cartwheel’ or ‘chain’ conspiracies: ‘The essential point in dealing with this type of conspiracy charge, where the prosecution have brought one, and only one, charge against the alleged conspirators, is to bring home to the minds of the jury that before they can convict anybody upon that conspiracy charge, they have got to be convinced in relation to each person charged that that person has conspired with another guilty person in relation to that single conspiracy . . there must not be wrapped up in one conspiracy charge what is in fact a charge involving two or more conspiracies.’

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.241538

Rex v Rudd: 1775

Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime.
Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and sought a pardon after conviction, his claim was for the mercy only of the crown, and had to be based upo the magistrates’ implied promise and his own wholhearted co-operation and full disclosure. Lord Mansfield: ‘If she had such a right, we should be bound ex debito justitiae to bail her. If she had not such legal right, but yet came under circumstances sufficient to warrant the court in saying, that she had a title to a recommendation to the King for a pardon, we should bail her for the purpose of giving her an opportunity of applying for such pardon.’ The defendant could not claim a pardon as of right (a pardon promised by proclamation or given under statute or earned by the ancient procedure of approvement) but:- ‘There is besides a practice, which indeed does not give a legal right; and that is where accomplices having made a full and free confession of the whole truth, are in consequence thereof admitted evidence for the Crown and that evidence is afterwards made use of to convict the other offenders. If in that case they act fairly and openly, and discover the whole truth, though they are not entitled as of right to a pardon, yet the usage, lenity and the practice of the courts is to stop the prosecution against them and they have an equitable title to a recommendation for the King’s mercy.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

[1775] 1 Cowp 331, [1775] 1 Leach 115, [1775] 98 ER 1114

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lennox Phillip and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same vCommissioners of Prisons PC 19-Feb-1992
(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the . .
Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.238510

Prosecutor v Furundzija: 1 Apr 1999

(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: ‘There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ‘the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind’. This revulsion, as well as the importance States attach to the eradication of torture, has led to the cluster of treaty and customary rules on torture acquiring a particularly high status in the international normative system, a status similar to that of principles such as those prohibiting genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, aggression, the acquisition of territory by force and the forcible suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination. The prohibition against torture exhibits three important features, which are probably held in common with the other general principles protecting fundamental human rights.
The Prohibition Even Covers Potential Breaches.
Firstly, given the importance that the international community attaches to the protection of individuals from torture, the prohibition against torture is particularly stringent and sweeping. States are obliged not only to prohibit and punish torture, but also to forestall its occurrence: it is insufficient merely to intervene after the infliction of torture, when the physical or moral integrity of human beings has already been irremediably harmed. Consequently, States are bound to put in place all those measures that may pre-empt the perpetration of torture. As was authoritatively held by the European Court of Human Rights in Soering, international law intends to bar not only actual breaches but also potential breaches of the prohibition against torture (as well as any inhuman and degrading treatment). It follows that international rules prohibit not only torture but also (i) the failure to adopt the national measures necessary for implementing the prohibition and (ii) the maintenance in force or passage of laws which are contrary to the prohibition.
Let us consider these two aspects separately. Normally States, when they undertake international obligations through treaties or customary rules, adopt all the legislative and administrative measures necessary for implementing such obligations. However, subject to obvious exceptions, failure to pass the required implementing legislation has only a potential effect: the wrongful fact occurs only when administrative or judicial measures are taken which, being contrary to international rules due to the lack of implementing legislation, generate State responsibility. By contrast, in the case of torture, the requirement that States expeditiously institute national implementing measures is an integral part of the international obligation to prohibit this practice. Consequently, States must immediately set in motion all those procedures and measures that may make it possible, within their municipal legal system, to forestall any act of torture or expeditiously put an end to any torture that is occurring.

Another facet of the same legal effect must be emphasised. Normally, the maintenance or passage of national legislation inconsistent with international rules generates State responsibility and consequently gives rise to a corresponding claim for cessation and reparation (lato sensu) only when such legislation is concretely applied. By contrast, in the case of torture, the mere fact of keeping in force or passing legislation contrary to the international prohibition of torture generates international State responsibility. The value of freedom from torture is so great that it becomes imperative to preclude any national legislative act authorising or condoning torture or at any rate capable of bringing about this effect.
The Prohibition Imposes Obligations Erga Omnes.
Furthermore, the prohibition of torture imposes upon States obligations erga omnes, that is, obligations owed towards all the other members of the international community, each of which then has a correlative right. In addition, the violation of such an obligation simultaneously constitutes a breach of the correlative right of all members of the international community and gives rise to a claim for compliance accruing to each and every member, which then has the right to insist on fulfilment of the obligation or in any case to call for the breach to be discontinued.
Where there exist international bodies charged with impartially monitoring compliance with treaty provisions on torture, these bodies enjoy priority over individual States in establishing whether a certain State has taken all the necessary measures to prevent and punish torture and, if they have not, in calling upon that State to fulfil its international obligations. The existence of such international mechanisms makes it possible for compliance with international law to be ensured in a neutral and impartial manner.
The Prohibition Has Acquired the Status of Jus Cogens.
While the erga omnes nature just mentioned appertains to the area of international enforcement (lato sensu), the other major feature of the principle proscribing torture relates to the hierarchy of rules in the international normative order. Because of the importance of the values it protects, this principle has evolved into a peremptory norm or jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even ‘ordinary’ customary rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this higher rank is that the principle at issue cannot be derogated from by States through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force.

Clearly, the jus cogens nature of the prohibition against torture articulates the notion that the prohibition has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community. Furthermore, this prohibition is designed to produce a deterrent effect, in that it signals to all members of the international community and the individuals over whom they wield authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which nobody must deviate.
The fact that torture is prohibited by a peremptory norm of international law has other effects at the inter-state and individual levels. At the inter-state level, it serves to internationally de-legitimise any legislative, administrative or judicial act authorising torture. It would be senseless to argue, on the one hand, that on account of the jus cogens value of the prohibition against torture, treaties or customary rules providing for torture would be null and void ab initio, and then be unmindful of a State say, taking national measures authorising or condoning torture or absolving its perpetrators through an amnesty law. If such a situation were to arise, the national measures, violating the general principle and any relevant treaty provision, would produce the legal effects discussed above and in addition would not be accorded international legal recognition. Proceedings could be initiated by potential victims if they had locus standi before a competent international or national judicial body with a view to asking it to hold the national measure to be internationally unlawful; or the victim could bring a civil suit for damage in a foreign court, which would therefore be asked inter alia to disregard the legal value of the national authorising act. What is even more important is that perpetrators of torture acting upon or benefiting from those national measures may nevertheless be held criminally responsible for torture, whether in a foreign State, or in their own State under a subsequent regime. In short, in spite of possible national authorisation by legislative or judicial bodies to violate the principle banning torture, individuals remain bound to comply with that principle. As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg put it: ‘individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State’.

Furthermore, at the individual level, that is, that of criminal liability, it would seem that one of the consequences of the jus cogens character bestowed by the international community upon the prohibition of torture is that every State is entitled to investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction. Indeed, it would be inconsistent on the one hand to prohibit torture to such an extent as to restrict the normally unfettered treaty-making power of sovereign States, and on the other hand bar States from prosecuting and punishing those torturers who have engaged in this odious practice abroad. This legal basis for States’ universal jurisdiction over torture bears out and strengthens the legal foundation for such jurisdiction found by other courts in the inherently universal character of the crime. It has been held that international crimes being universally condemned wherever they occur, every State has the right to prosecute and punish the authors of such crimes. As stated in general terms by the Supreme Court of Israel in Eichmann, and echoed by a USA court in Demjanjuk, ‘it is the universal character of the crimes in question ie. international crimes which vests in every State the authority to try and punish those who participated in their commission’.
It would seem that other consequences include the fact that torture may not be covered by a statute of limitations, and must not be excluded from extradition under any political offence exemption.’

Citations:

[1998] ICTY 3, (1998) 38 ILM 317

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. . .
See Also – Prosecutor v Furundzija ICT 10-Dec-1998
The status of the prohibition on State torture as a rule of jus cogens has the consequence that at the inter-State level, any legislative, administrative or judicial act authorising torture is illegitimate. Furthermore, the prohibition on State . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.235915

Regina v Ruzic: 2001

(Canada) ‘Verification of a spurious claim of duress may prove difficult. Hence, courts should be alive to the need to apply reasonable, but strict standards for the application of the defence.’

Citations:

(2001) 153 CCC (3d) 1

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – Hasan, Regina v HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked two questions: the meaning of ‘confession’ for the purposes of section 76(1) of the 1984 Act, and as to the defence of duress. The defendant had been involved in burglary, being told his family would be harmed if he refused. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223667