Tag: Criminal Practice

Regina v Cox (Andrew Mark): CACD 12 Apr 1995

The Court of Appeal has the power to apply the proviso preserving a conviction despite the failure of the judge at trial to mention the defence of provocation.

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 513

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86461

Regina v Blackwell; Regina v Farley; Regina v Adams: CACD 2 Mar 1995

The judge should investigate any suspicions of jury tampering immediately, but must be careful not to enquire as to the jury’s deliberations. The common law rule against investigating events in the jury room has recognised exceptions, but these are confined to situations where the jury is alleged to have been affected by what are termed extraneous influences, eg contact with other persons who may have passed on information which should not have been before the jury.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-Apr-1995, Times 02-Mar-1995, [1996] Crim LR 248

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 8-Jul-1997
A juror’s husband had been listening in court. He was present when the jury was sent out and matters prejudicial to the defendant were discussed.
Held: After questioning of the husband, there was no evidence to suggest that any improper . .
Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86151

Regina v Bailey: CACD 26 Jan 1995

A confession made by a mentally handicapped person to a non-independent witness should only be admitted into evidence after a proper warning was agreed to be given to the jury.

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-1995

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86084

Regina v Chalkley, Jeffries: CACD 19 Dec 1997

The 1995 Act will not permit the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal where a conviction was safe but there was a substantial procedural unfairness. In order to understand the role of pre-1 January 1996 jurisprudence in applying what is now the current test it is important to understand what was meant by a plea of guilty being ‘founded upon’ a ruling. There are two possibilities. The first is where, in the light of the admitted facts, the erroneous ruling left the defendant at trial with no legal basis for a verdict of not guilty. The second and broader meaning of the expression ‘founded upon’ in this context is ‘influenced by’ — that is, where a plea of guilty was influenced by an erroneous ruling of law. It is only where an erroneous ruling of law, coupled with the admitted facts made acquittal legally impossible that a plea of guilty can properly be said to have been ‘founded upon’ the ruling so as to enable a successful appeal against conviction. The fact that an erroneous ruling of law as to the admissibility of certain prosecution evidence drives a defendant to plead guilty because it makes the case against him factually overwhelming will not do. It does not make it impossible for him to maintain his innocence as a matter of law or of fact, it merely makes it harder.’

Judges:

Auld LJ, Kennedy, Blofield JJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1998, Gazette 04-Feb-1998, [1998] QB 848, [1997] EWCA Crim 3416, [1998] 3 WLR 146, [1998] 2 Cr App R 79

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Hewitson, Bramich, Vincent CACD 24-Sep-1998
The defendants appealed their conviction after admission of evidence taken from secret tape recordings taken from a recording device hidden in the garage of one of the defendants.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted. It was not . .
Cited – Asiedu v Regina CACD 30-Apr-2015
Renewed application for leave to appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property.
Lord Hughes referred to the general rule that, once a defendant has admitted facts . .
Cited – M Najib and Sons Ltd v Crown Prosecution Service CACD 26-Apr-2018
The company appealed against its conviction under the 2010 Regulation for failing to provide the required assistance for the taking of samples by an inspector. The company admitted the facts but said that the cost of compliance was too high, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.152871

Berry v The Queen: PC 15 Jul 1992

(Jamaica) A failure to comply with Jamaica’s own rules on disclosure was a material irregularity. Where credibility is in issue, a good character direction is always relevant.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 2 AC 364

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Marvin Murphy v The Queen PC 22-Nov-2001
(The Bahamas) The appellant had been convicted of burglary and robbery. The conviction depended upon identification by one witness who had given several differing descriptions. The trial was long delayed, and the appellant who was not represented . .
Cited – Teeluck and John v The State PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that his defence had been incompetent in having failed to require the judge to give a good character direction to the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Recent cases . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.78367

Regina v Mandair: HL 20 May 1994

The House of Lords may itself determine the grounds of an appeal, and deal with matters undetermined by Court of Appeal. A verdict of ‘causing GBH’ (not inflicting) was not an offence unknown to law. A verdict of ‘causing GBH contrary to s20’ was wide enough to include the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm.
In the context of considering the position if one or more grounds of appeal are left unresolved by the Court of Appeal, Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC: ‘It is often the case that a number of grounds of appeal are urged before the Court of Appeal but having reached a clear conclusion upon one which determines the case, the Court of Appeal do not decide the other grounds since such decision is unnecessary to the disposal of the case on the view they have taken of it. It would obviously be highly undesirable and wasteful to require the Court of Appeal in every case to decide all the grounds of appeal before disposing of an appeal before them, on the basis that if a point of law of general public importance is raised in the appeal the House of Lords may take a different view of the point from that taken by the Court of Appeal if leave to appeal to the House of Lords is granted in respect of the decision.’

Judges:

Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC

Citations:

Gazette 22-Jun-1994, Independent 20-May-1994, Times 20-May-1994, [1995] 1 AC 208

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20, Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .

Cited by:

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. . .
Cited – Hamilton and Others v Post Office Ltd CACD 15-Jan-2021
Good Reason to Pursue Second Appeal
The appellants had been convicted of fraud against the Post Office. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred their convictions on two grounds, namely abuse of process for the inability to provide a fair trial, and that the trial was an affront . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.87267

Regina v Gill: CACD 21 Jul 2000

When a defendant was silent, it was necessary for the court to be especially careful to give precise and accurate directions on the effect of such silence as to the drawing of adverse inferences. Having answered questions on some aspects, it was not possible for the court to separate out the issues safely so as to allow an adverse inference to be drawn, and the judge’s directions failed properly to identify clearly all six issues as required in R v Argent

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 49, [2001] 1 Cr App R 11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.158699

A (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 29 Mar 2000

The voir dire procedure is not appropriate for trials before justices. Accordingly it was wrong, in a trial of a youth for robbery, to hear evidence on a preliminary issue as to the availability of the defence of duress to the defendant, and to rule that it was unavailable. The most which could be done, was to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to raise it prima facie as an issue in the trial. The defendant had been unable to cross examine the witnesses nor to make representations, and the conviction would be set aside.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.77567

Regina v Miller: CACD 9 Jul 1999

In cases of allegations of sexual abuse prosecuted after many years, the effect of the delay in prejudicing the defendant was something which varied very much from case to case, and although the trial judge should consider a direction very carefully, its precise form remained a matter within his discretion.

Citations:

Times 09-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.85407

Regina v Hemmings; Regina v Miller; Regina v Hoines: CACD 15 Oct 1999

On a re-trial, it remains open to the judge to amend the indictment. Nothing in the Act takes away his powers to do so within the confines set out by the Act. Here a conspiracy charge had been replaced by separate charges of theft. The judge retained his powers under the Indictments Act, and this problem had not been addressed by those passing the later Act.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, Gazette 20-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 7, Indictments Act 1915 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.85301

IB v Cabinet (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters): ECJ 21 Oct 2010

ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4 – Grounds for optional non-execution – Article 4(6) – Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence – Article 5 – Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State – Article 5(1) – Sentence imposed in absentia – Article 5(3) – Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution – Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution – Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) – Compatibility.

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-306/09, C-306/09, [2011] 1 CMLR 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – IB v Cabinet (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 6-Jul-2010
ECJ (French Text) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Grounds for optional non-execution and guarantees provided by the issuing Member State – Possibility for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442620

Loughlin, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 18 Oct 2017

The court was asked as to the circumstances in which sentences passed on offenders who have given assistance to prosecuting authorities should be referred back to the sentencing court under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Held: ‘The Divisional Court’s view that the predominant factor in deciding where the interests of justice lay was whether a change in circumstances had occurred between those which obtained at the time that the agreement with the specified prosecutor was made and the time at which consideration of whether to refer the case back to the original sentencing court took place cannot be upheld. Consideration of the interests of justice in this context involves an open-ended deliberation. Section 74(3) imposes no explicit constraint on how the specified prosecutor should approach the question and there is no warrant, in my opinion, for implying a fetter on the exercise of the unrestricted discretion for which the statute clearly provides.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 63, [2017] WLR(D) 674, [2017] 1 WLR 3963, [2018] 1 All ER 361, [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 21, [2018] NI 88, UKSC 2015/0110

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, Supreme Court Summay, SC, SC Sgummary Video, SC Video 20170620 am, SC Video 20170620 Pm, WLRD

Statutes:

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal from – Loughlin, Re Judicial Review QBNI 21-Apr-2015
. .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Regina v Shippey and Jedynak 1988
The defendants were tried for rape. The defence pleaded no case to answer saying that the complainant’s evidence was weak uncorroborated and inconsistent.
Held: The judge should assess the evidence and if the evidence of the witness upon whom . .
Cited – Police Service of Northern Ireland v LO CANI 2-Feb-2006
Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of a magistrate whereby he found that the respondent, LO, had no case to answer on a charge of breach of a non-molestation order and on charges of assaulting the first complainant JH occasioning her . .
Cited – Courtney, Regina v CANI 26-Jan-2007
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling of no case to answer. . .
Cited – P, Regina v; Regina v Blackburn CACD 22-Oct-2007
Whilst awaiting trial, P had offered evidence against others on other serious crimes. On conviction, the judge was supplied with a statement explaining his assistance. He now appealed sentence of 17 years imprisonment for assorted serious drugs . .
Cited – Regina v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne QBD 17-May-2000
The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the Director not to prosecute anybody after the death of their brother in prison custody, and while under restraint by prison officers. The jury at a coroner’s inquest had returned a verdict . .
Cited – Mohit v The Director of Public Prosecutions of Mauritius PC 25-Apr-2006
(Mauritius) The board was asked whether the decision of the Director to discontinue a private prosecution was a decision capable of review by the courts under the constitution of Mauritius. . .
Cited – Sharma v Brown-Antoine, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and others PC 30-Nov-2006
(Trinidad and Tobago) Complaint was made as to a decision to begin professional discliplinary proceedings against a senior member of the judiciary.
Held: Although a decision to prosecute was in principle susceptible to judicial review on the . .
Cited – Mooney, Re Judicial Review QBNI 8-Apr-2014
. .
Cited – Kincaid, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 19-Apr-2007
Application for judicial review of the avowed failure of the Public Prosecution Service to provide reasons for the decision not to prosecute a suspect for shooting the applicant. . .
Cited – McCabe, Re Judicial Review QBNI 27-Apr-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.597259

Ministerul Public v Radu: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters – Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Whether it is open to the executing Member State to refuse the request for surrender of the requested person

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-396/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Ministerul Public v Radu ECJ 29-Jan-2013
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – European arrest warrant issued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.465016

Regina v Shippey and Jedynak: 1988

The defendants were tried for rape. The defence pleaded no case to answer saying that the complainant’s evidence was weak uncorroborated and inconsistent.
Held: The judge should assess the evidence and if the evidence of the witness upon whom the prosecution case depended was self-contradictory and out of reason and all common sense then such evidence was tenuous and suffered from inherent weakness. Turner J gave a direction on the charge of based upon his assessment of crucial parts of the prosecution case as being ‘frankly incredible’ and as having ‘really significant inherent inconsistencies’ and as being ‘strikingly and wholly inconsistent with the allegation of rape’.
The requirement to take the prosecution evidence at its height did not mean ‘picking out all the plums and leaving the duff behind’. It is necessary to look at the evidence as a whole, not merely parts of it, and assess whether a reasonable jury could come to the conclusion on that evidence that the defendant is guilty. In this case the court concluded that ‘a jury properly directed could not properly convict.’ Galbraith did not say that the prosecution need include only those parts of its case which pointed to guilt when resisting such an application.

Judges:

Turner J

Citations:

[1988] Crim LR 767

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Explained – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
Cited – H, Regina v CACD 25-Apr-2006
The defendant youth appealed his conviction and sentence for rape by oral penetration of a six or seven year old boy. He complained that the evidence contained such inconsistences that the case should not have proceeded. Complaint was also made that . .
Cited – Loughlin, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the circumstances in which sentences passed on offenders who have given assistance to prosecuting authorities should be referred back to the sentencing court under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.214646

Regina v Toney: CACD 18 Mar 1999

Counsel advising on an appeal against sentence should make full allowance for the possibility that an appeal may act to extend the time served and delay the release from prison by disapplying greater early release provisions.

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.85590

Regina v Fennell: CACD 17 May 2000

The defendant appealed against her conviction for racially aggravated criminal damage. The court considered whether it was possible to leave the matter for the jury without an additional count on the indictment, and whether a low value charge was indictable, triable either way, or summary.
Held: The rules restricting the selection of mode of trial for certain offences where low values were involved did not affect the underlying characteristic of being either way offences capable of being dealt with at the Crown Court. A criminal damage charge committed along with other offences could be left to a jury notwithstanding that the amount involved was below andpound;5,000. The restriction on election was procedural not substantive, and did not affect the status of the offence: ‘section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 clearly does not say that criminal damage is triable only summarily. It would, in a sense, be surprising if it did, because section 17 of that Act specifically says that it is triable either way. Section 22 directs magistrates to proceed on a basis which assumes that criminal damage can be tried on indictment: for, when considering the appropriate mode of trial, if the damage is less than andpound;5,000, they are to proceed ‘as if’ the offence was triable only summarily.’

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Hallett J

Citations:

Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] Crim LR 677, [2000] 1 WLR 2011, (2000) 164 JP 386, [2000] 2 Cr App R 318, [2000] EWCA Crim 3544

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.85257

BBC, Petitioners: HCJ 11 Apr 2000

The absence of a jury from a criminal trial was not sufficient of itself to set aside the rule against the broadcasting of criminal proceedings. To set aside the rule, the onus was on the broadcaster to justify the departure from the rule and to persuade the court that there would be no interference in the proper administration of justice. It was not for the courts to justify acting in accordance with the rule.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-2000, 2001 SCCR 440

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – BBC, Petitioners (No 2) HCJ 13-Jun-2000
A ban on the televising of the Lockerbie trial was not a breach of the broadcasters rights under article 10. The fact that arrangements had been made for the trial to be relayed by television under strict conditions to relatives of the deceased, but . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v William Frederick Ian Beggs (Opinion No 1) HCJ 17-Sep-2001
The defendant complained that the publicity preceding his trial for a notorious murder would prejudice his right to a fair trial, and sought an order under the 1981 Act to delay any further publicity until after the trial, partcularly where previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.78300

Crown Prosecution Service v Tweddell: Admn 1 Mar 2001

The defendant was accused of assualting his wife. He had already been brought before the court for contempt of court, and been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and he now said that this prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.
Held: The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Astill J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 188, [2002] 2 FLR 400

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.562911

Rubin v Director of Public Prosecutions: 1989

The court considered the standing of a private prosecutor. Watkins LJ said: ‘It is, I also believe, equally well established that, generally speaking, any member of the public may lay an information. There are statutory exceptions to that right and in some instances consent to prosecute has to be obtained from a specified authority. But in the vast majority of the cases it is a member of the public who informs and with rare exceptions that member of the public is a constable.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

[1989] 3 WLR 1088

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ewing, Regina (on the Application of) v Davis Admn 2-Jul-2007
The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.267549

Regina v Manzur; Regina v Mahmood: CACD 28 Nov 1996

The prosecution was seeking to rely upon the plea of guilty of a person who had not given evidence.
Held: A co-accused’s guilty plea was admissible only with an explanation of its basis.

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 1566

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Distinguished – Gardner and Another, Regina v CACD 22-Apr-1997
Appeals from conviction of conspiracy to defraud. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.87271

Angus v United Kingdom Border Agency: Admn 11 Mar 2011

The appellant appealed by case stated against an order for forfeiture of andpound;40,000 cash seized by the respondent on her entering the UK. The Crown Court, on appeal from the Magistrates Court, had found that that cash ‘may well have been’ the proceeds of money laundering or of income tax evasion, but it made no positive finding, even on the balance of probabilities. The question was asked by case stated whether, for the purposes of forfeiture proceedings, it was necessary ‘to show that the property seized was obtained through conduct of one of a number of kinds each of which would have been unlawful conduct or is it sufficient for the officer to point to criminal conduct of an unspecified kind’.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Muneka was not authority for the general proposition for which it had been relied on, and specifically that the requirements of sections 241 and 242 must be the same for all the provisions of Part 5, whether under Chapter 2 or Chapter 3.
It would be wrong to create two systems for interpreting the same provision.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Nicola Davies J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 461 (Admin), [2011] Lloyds Rep FC 329

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 294

Citing:

Explained – Muneka v Customs and Excise Admn 2-Feb-2005
The Albanian claimant was found at Heathrow Airport with a ticket to Tirana and with over andpound;20,000 in cash in his baggage. The district judge held that the cash had been obtained through unlawful conduct and that it was therefore recoverable . .

Cited by:

Cited – Wiese v The UK Border Agency Admn 29-Jun-2012
The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430522

Regina v Qureshi: CACD 23 Jul 2001

The appellant had been convicted of arson. A few days after the conviction, one juror reported concern about the behaviour of the jury.
Held: Authority was clear, that the court could not enter into an investigation of what had happened with the jury after the conclusion of the trial. The Human Rights cases had related to situations where these concerns had been raised before the jury had returned a verdict.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Wright and Leveson JJ

Citations:

Gazette 20-Sep-2001, [2002] 1 WLR 518, [2002] Crim LR 62

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Binding – Regina v BM and Another CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .
Distinguished – Sander v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-May-2000
In a trial of an Asian defendant a juror complained that other jurors had made racist jokes, and feared that the defendant would not receive a fair trial. The judge obtained re-assurance from the jury that they would not so act, but did so in a way . .
Distinguished – Gregory v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
gregory_ukECHR1997
A judge’s direction to the jury to disregard any question of racial bias was sufficient to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. In discussing the protection of the secrecy of jury deliberations: ‘The court acknowledges that the rule governing the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.166157

Regina v O’Brien: CACD 23 Mar 2000

The question of whether counts separated over a long time could be joined together in one indictment depended upon there being shown a nexus between them. The longer the time span, the greater the need for such a clear link, before evidence of the commission of one offence could be relevant in establishing the next. Time was not determinative, there had to be a sufficient nexus to create a link, and the test of such a link was the cross admissibility of evidence in the one case and the next.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.85435

Aryan v Department of Public Prosecutions: Admn 13 Jan 2004

The defendant appealed against a refusal by the magistrates to allow him to re-open his mode of trial hearing so as to allow him to elect trial at the Crown Court. She was Iranian and non-English speaker, though with a translator. The magistrates had found that she had understood the nature and consequences of the decision she made.

Judges:

May LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 45 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 17 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Craske, ex parte Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 1957
The court has discretion to permit a defendant a change of election for trial. Devlin J said: ‘I do not think that means that once the procedure is set in motion, the court has ineluctably to allow the wheels to revolve without any power to stop . .
Cited – Regina v Southampton Justices, ex parte Briggs QBD 1972
Lord Widgery CJ, with whom Ashworth and Griffiths JJ agreed, stated that, in determining a request by a defendant to withdraw consent to summary jurisdiction, the justices should exercise their jurisdiction ‘on how they see the broad justice of the . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham Justices, ex parte Hodgson 1985
McCullough J said that a defendant must ‘understand the nature and significance’ of his choice of venue for his trial. The central factor was the state of mind of the defendant at the time he made his election: ‘Did he properly understand the nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425317

Thompson and Others v Regina: CACD 14 Jul 2010

Six appeals were brought alleging various forms of irregularity by the jurors.
Held: Lord Judge said: ‘The verdict must be reached, according to the jury oath in accordance with the evidence. For this purpose each juror brings to the decision-making process, his or her own experience of life and general knowledge of the way things work in the real world; that is part of the stock-in-trade of the jury process, and the combination of the experience of a randomly selected group of 12 individuals, exercising their civic responsibility as a collective body, provides an essential strength of the system. However the introduction of extraneous material, that is non-evidential material, constitutes an irregularity. Examples . . include telephone calls into or out of the jury room, papers mistakenly included in the jury bundle, discussions between jurors and relatives or friends about the case, and in recent years, information derived by one or more jurors from the internet.’

Judges:

Lord Judge LCJ, Hughes LJ, Bean J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 1623, [2011] 1 WLR 200, [2010] 2 Cr App R 27, [2011] 2 All ER 83

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v B (CA 459/06) 27-May-2008
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The court considered directions to be given to jurors as to the use of the internet whilst sitting as jurors. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420753

Carter, Regina v: CACD 4 Feb 2010

The defendant appealed against his convictions on allegations of mortgage fraud conspiracy. Two jurors had been discharged after retirement, and the defendant Said that the remaining jurors should have been warned not to take account of any comments previously made by the two departing jurors.
Held: No such direction was needed. It would be impossible for a jury to comply, and: ‘ Before reaching their decision, they will have reflected on the arguments they have heard advanced by both, and in a multi-handed case by all the parties at trial, and then, in the privacy of their retiring room, the opinions and views expressed by each member of the jury. This is, as counsel for the Crown, Mr Brooke, put it in his written submission, a ‘dynamic’ process. Of course the jurors who have been discharged cannot be, and are not responsible for the eventual verdict. But until their discharge they are entitled to express their views, favourable or adverse to the prosecution or to some parts of the prosecution case, or favourable or adverse to the defendant or some part of the defence case. As the discussions proceed, the views expressed at an earlier stage may well develop and change. It is a continuing process. But while jurors are properly empanelled, the views of each and every one of them are entitled to the same careful analysis and respect as those expressed by any juror, including jurors who are later discharged. On discharge they cease to have any responsibility for the verdict, but there is no reason to imagine that the views expressed at a time when they believed that they would be responsible for the verdict were expressed any less conscientiously and responsibly than those of any other juror. Those views become part of the fabric of opinions under consideration, impossible to isolate and compartmentalise. It would therefore be wholly unrealistic for a direction to be given to the remaining members of the jury to ignore the views expressed on any subject by the departed jurors. What matters is that the discussion between the remaining jurors will continue to ebb and flow and, on refection, the views expressed by the departing juror (or jurors) would have been examined and either accepted wholly or in part, or rejected wholly or in part, or treated as irrelevant by the remaining jurors in the course of reaching the decisions to which their conscience impels them. The eventual verdict, however, is no more than that of the jurors who have been party to it as a result of the process of discussion in the privacy of the jury room. The views expressed by the departed jurors will only be relevant to the extent that the remaining jurors will have adopted or assimilated those views as their own.’

Judges:

Lord Judge LCJ, Penry-Davey, Irwin JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 201, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 33, [2010] 4 All ER 285, [2010] 1 Cr App R 33, [2010] 1 WLR 1577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v LS CACD 2009
After a juror had been discharged during the jury’s retirement, the judge directed the remaining members as follows: ‘I do not know and I am not going to enquire as to whether the juror whom I have discharged took part to any great extent in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420214

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Crown Court Sitting At Croydon: Admn 24 Mar 2010

The minister appealed against an order dismissing an application for a confiscation order as an abuse of process. The defendant had earlier had been told that no application would be made.

Judges:

Toulson, Griffith Williams JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 805 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Social Security Administration 1992 111A(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408633

H, Regina v: CACD 13 Feb 2008

The judge had ruled that the evidence intended to be offered could not create offences within the 1977 Act. Verdicts of not guilty were entered. The decision was a terminating ruling. The prosecutor failed to give the appropriate section 58 undertaking on appealing.
Held: Attending to the purpose of the 2003 Act, the prosecutor’s mistake was recitified and the appeal could continue.
As to the substantial appeal, the judge had found that the tenancy or licence was an excluded one. The resident landlord having terminated the licence, the occupiers became trespassers outside the protection of the 1977 Act. However the judge had erred since the occupiers had been given a minimum term of six months which the landlord’s notice did not abridge. It could be brought to an end only for a breach of its terms.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge P, David J, David Clarke J

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 483

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Eviction Act 1977 1(3A)(a), Criminal Justice Act 2003 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.406147

Charles v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 26 Nov 2009

The police were admitted to have failed to comply with Code of Practice A. The defendant appealed against the conviction on his admission.
Held: A failure to adhere to a requirement in PACE is not mere ‘rigmarole’: ‘These provisions are not a mere rigmarole to be recited like a mantra and then ignored. The provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Code relating to caution, are designed to protect a detainee. They are important protections. They impose significant disciplines upon the police as to how they are to behave. If they can secure a serious conviction in breach of those provisions that is an important matter which undermines the protection of a detainee in the police station’

Judges:

Moses LJ, Hickinbottom J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3521 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396502

Azam v Epping Forest District Council: Admn 8 Oct 2009

The claimant challenged the certificate issued in his prosecution as to the date on which the prosecutor said that sufficient evidence had come into his hands, to commence a prosecution under the 1988 Act.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3177 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Benefits

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384126

Regina v Manchester City Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte S Nelson: CACD 1977

Challenge was made to the institution of fresh committal proceedings following the applicant’s discharge at an earlier committal hearing when, the prosecution’s application for an adjournment having been refused, no evidence was offered against him. The applicant contended that the prosecution’s only right was to apply for a voluntary bill of indictment.
Held: No question of autrefois acquit arises by reason of the earlier discharge. Any practice did not change that rule.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.181628

Regina v Denton: CACD 22 Nov 2000

In a trial for affray, two witnesses said they were reluctant to give evidence in person in fear for their own safety. Their evidence was admitted by the judge using his discretion under the Act for this purpose. He directed the jury as to the care they had to exercise, and there was other evidence. He did not give his reasons for exercising this discretion. It was held that although he should have given his reasons, in this case there had been no injustice, and the verdict stood.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.88435

Regina v Ghadamia: CACD 21 May 1997

The defendant’s mortgage debts are to be disregarded when looking at whether or not to make a confiscation order, but are not to be disregarded when making a costs order. The two questions look at the defendant’s circumstances from different points of view.

Citations:

Times 21-May-1997

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.88470

Regina v G (Autrefois acquit): CACD 25 May 2001

Where on a previous occasion the defendant had been acquitted with a formal verdict, after the prosecution had offered no evidence, it was not open to the prosecution later to return and allege a more serious offence based upon the same facts. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of the plea of autrefois acquit. The Acts made a dismissal equivalent to a finding of not guilty. Earlier decisions to the contrary effect (R v Brookes ([1995] Crim LR 630) was decided per incuriam.

Citations:

Times 25-May-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 27, Criminal Justice Act 1967 17, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Overruled – Regina v Brookes CACD 1995
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.88463

Stratton, Regina (On the Application of) v Waltham Forest Magistrates Court: Admn 1 Jul 2009

The defendant sought judcial review of a decision that he should stand trial on a charge of producing cannabis. He said that having been offered and having refused a caution three times, it was an abuse of process now to prosecute him. He said that the cannabis would have been for his own personal and medical use, and that it the law was discriminatory when more dangerous drugs were permitted to be supplied and used. He contrasted the policy taken by the government with that of its advisory council.
Held: The arguments were complex and there was no clear conflict as alleged, and ‘The Magistrates’ Court, as he acknowledges, does not have any jurisdiction to declare, as incompatible with human rights, the legislation in question. In my judgment, the arguments which he puts forward do not begin to amount to a case for incompatibility, or for a case that any decision to prosecute is contrary to his human rights. What he has done is articulately to set out a particular policy position which he would prefer the Government to adopt, but which, thus far, it has not adopted. In my judgment that is not the business of this court and I have no hesitation in deciding that this is an unarguable challenge and that permission ought to be refused.’

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2457 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376006

Rubach (Environment and Consumers): ECJ 16 Jul 2009

ECJ Protection of species of wild fauna and flora Species listed in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 Evidence of lawful acquisition of specimens of those species Burden of proof – Presumption of innocence – Rights of the defence.

Citations:

C-344/08, [2009] EUECJ C-344/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.374271

Regina v C (A Minor): CACD 5 Jul 2000

A judge who had ordered the trial of an eleven year old boy in the Crown Court but in doing so had kept in mind the judgement in the cases of T v United Kingdom and V v United Kingdom, and had made appropriate adjustments to the proceedings, had acted properly within his discretion.

Citations:

Times 05-Jul-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Child Support, Human Rights

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.85159

Robson, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 29 Jul 2016

The claimant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) to prosecute her for criminal damage rather than to offer her a conditional caution as an alternative disposal.

Judges:

Simon LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 2191 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.569396

KK v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 29 Jul 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from the Youth Court as to the decision of the District Judge to hear at the same time and to give a single judgment where (a) there was a trial of one of two co-defendants who had pleaded not guilty to robbery and (b) there was a Newton hearing of the other defendant who had pleaded guilty to the robbery on a basis of plea which was not acceptable. The case stated involved two main issues:
i) Was the evidence of the co-defendant in the Newton hearing admissible in the trial of the other defendant and, if not, was the conviction safe? In the light of the correct concession by the respondent Director of Public Prosecutions that the evidence was inadmissible, we determined at the hearing that the conviction should be quashed and directed that that defendant be re-tried before a different judge as soon as possible.
ii) How the Youth Court should best proceed in such a case. As this was a question of more general interest, we stated we would give our reasons later in the light of further submissions that we directed be provided in writing.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, Singh J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1976 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.567867

Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief Of Police for Northumbria and Others: QBD 7 May 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 958 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346751

Lawrie and Symington Ltd and Others v The Procurator Fiscal, Lanark and Others: HCJ 15 May 2009

Judges:

Lord Carloway

Citations:

[2009] ScotHC HCJAC – 50, 2009 GWD 18-287, [2009] HCJAC 50, 2009 SLT 723, 2009 SCCR 640, 2009 SCL 958

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – HM Advocate v Aldred HCJ 1922
Lord Salvesen said: ‘It is however, I think, a fundamental and well established principle in criminal law that no expenses are awarded by the High Court – sitting as such and not as a court of review – either in favour of, or against, the accused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346255

Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca: HL 16 Feb 2005

A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their duties and left to their verdicts. The appellants said that steps should have been taken to investigate the alleged misconduct so as to allow him a fair trial.
Held: The judge was correct to to enquire: ‘the common law prohibition against inquiring into events in the jury room certainly extends to matters connected with the subject matter of the jury’s deliberations’ However the actual direction was insufficiently comprehensive or emphatic. ‘If the jury had been behaving as alleged by the juror in her letter, they required a strong, even stern, warning that they must follow the judge’s directions on the law, adhere to the evidence without speculation and decide on the verdicts without pressure or bargaining. I am unable to regard the directions given as having covered these areas with sufficient particularity and emphasis, and I consider that the jury required stronger and more detailed guidance and instruction. Without that it is difficult to be satisfied that the discussion in the jury room was conducted thenceforth in the proper manner. ‘ Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-2005, [2005] UKHL 12, [2005] 1 WLR 704, [2005] 1 All ER 29

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Ellis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
Cited – Regina v Lucas CACD 1991
An appellant should not be allowed to make tactical decisions not to object to something at his trial, but to save it for an appeal: ‘an appellant should not be able to blow hot and cold in this way.’ and ‘The appellant had himself been made aware . .
Cited – Regina v Thompson CCA 1962
There was tendered to the court what appeared to be a statement from a juror asserting that a majority of the jury had been ready to acquit until the foreman read out a list of the previous convictions of the accused.
Held: ‘This court is now . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
Cited – Regina v BM and Another CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .
Cited – Regina v Blackwell; Regina v Farley; Regina v Adams CACD 2-Mar-1995
The judge should investigate any suspicions of jury tampering immediately, but must be careful not to enquire as to the jury’s deliberations. The common law rule against investigating events in the jury room has recognised exceptions, but these are . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 8-Jul-1997
A juror’s husband had been listening in court. He was present when the jury was sent out and matters prejudicial to the defendant were discussed.
Held: After questioning of the husband, there was no evidence to suggest that any improper . .
Cited – Regina v Robinson CACD 8-Nov-2002
The defendant appealed his conviction on the ground that a police informant had been a solicitor’s clerk.
Held: Appeal dismissed, but the use of members of the legal profession as informants, must always be dangerous, and capable of . .
Cited – Regina v Orgles and Another CACD 9-Jun-1993
Jurors were not to be questioned individually as to on their capacity to continue. Any questions must be put through the foreman, while the whole jury was in open court. It is an irregularity to question individual jurors in the absence of the . .
Cited – Regina v McKechnie 1992
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it. . .
Cited – Regina v Aitken; Regina v Bennett; Regina v Barson CMAC 8-Jul-1992
Recommendation to change rules allowing judge advocate to sit alone when the question is solely an issue of law. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Attorney General v Scotcher HL 19-May-2005
Following a trial, a juror wrote to the defendant’s mother to say that other jury members had not considered the case in a proper manner. He had been given written advice that he was not free to discuss a case with anyone. He appealed his conviction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.222769

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Bentley: QBD 8 Jul 1993

Bentley had been convicted of the murder of a policeman. He was of low intelligence and he was captured. His co-accused still held a gun. He shouted out ‘Let him have it’ He was convicted, but had said that he had only intended for the gun to be surrendered. A posthumous pardon was sought.
Held: The royal prerogative of pardon is a flexible power. The court recommended to the Home Secretary that he re-examine the case of Bentley who had been hanged in 1953 with a view to exercising the prerogative of mercy. Home Secretary’s decision to pardon prisoner is susceptible to Judicial Review and the court could not make an order. The Home Secretary’s discretion on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a wide discretion.
‘The present Home Secretary is fully aware that there is nothing to prevent him recommending the grant of a free pardon even in a case in which he is not persuaded that the conviction was wrong . . He continues to think that a free pardon should be recommended only when the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that the convicted person was not guilty of the offence charged.’
The court did not think the Home Secretary’s understanding as non-justiciable policy: ‘the substance of the applicant’s case was that the Home Secretary failed to recognise the fact that the prerogative of mercy is capable of being exercised in many different circumstances and over a wide range and therefore failed to consider the form of pardon which might be appropriate to meet the facts of the present case. Such a failure is, we think, reviewable.’
The Court concluded: ‘it is an error to regard the prerogative of mercy as a prerogative right which is only exercisable in cases which fall into specific categories. The prerogative is a flexible power and its exercise can and should be adapted to meet the circumstances of the particular case.’

Citations:

Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Independent 08-Jul-1993, Times 08-Jul-1993, [1994] QB 349, [1993] 4 All ER 442, [1994] 2 WLR 101

Statutes:

Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shields, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 17-Dec-2008
The claimant had been convicted in Bulgaria of attempted murder. He had denied it, and somebody later confessed to the crime, but that confession had not been admitted. Having been transferred to England to complete his sentence, he now asked for a . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.87833

Gordon v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (Scotland): SC 22 Mar 2017

The appellant the Commission’s decision not to refer his case back to the court. They had agreed that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to make such a referral. His statement had been obtained without the presence or availability of a lawyer in a manner subsequently ruled unlawful in Cadder.
Held: The Commission did not err in any of the respects complained of, as the courts below correctly held.
The fact that the evidence in question was and remains undisputed is plainly relevant to an evaluation of whether it is in the interests of justice to make a reference. It would not normally be in the interests of justice to quash a conviction merely because, under the law as now understood, there was a lack of admissible corroboration of a fact which had never been in dispute.
As to the failure to challenge the police interview before Cadder, Lord Pentland said: ‘I also consider that it was plainly important for the respondents to acknowledge that in the course of two full appeals against his conviction the petitioner never challenged the fairness of the manner in which the police conducted the interview. Nor did he seek to argue on appeal that the use made of the interview by the Crown at his trial was unfair.’
Given that the appellant’s admission that sexual intercourse had taken place was admissible under the law as it then stood, he was entitled to have the whole of the interview placed before the jury, as a matter of fairness, so that the jury were aware that the admission was made in the context of his also maintaining that intercourse had been consensual. The result was that, although he was entitled to give evidence in his own defence, he did not have to do so in order for his defence to be placed before the jury: they had already heard his account to the police. He did not, therefore, have to expose his account to cross-examination. That afforded him an opportunity which would not have existed if the interview had been inadmissible. In the event, he availed himself of that opportunity. That was a matter which could properly be taken into account by the Commission when evaluating the course of action which the interests of justice required.

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 20, 2017 GWD 11-144, 2017 SLT 365, UKSC 2015/0125

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 194B(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 26-Oct-2010
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible
The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer.
Held: The . .
Appeal from – Gordon, for Judicial Review SCS 29-Nov-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) Challenge to refusal of order for review of failure of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the reclaimer’s case to the High Court.
Held: Appeal refused. . .
See Also – Gordon v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 24-Apr-2009
. .
Cited – A v The Governor of Arbour Hill Prison 10-Jul-2006
Supreme Court of Ireland
Murray CJ said: ‘[T]he retrospective effect of a judicial decision is excluded from cases already finally determined. This is the common law position … No one has ever suggested that every time there is a judicial . .
Cited – Salduz v Turkey ECHR 27-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been taken into custody before he was interrogated during his detention by police officers of the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmir Security Directorate.
Held: There had been a violation of art 6(3)(c) of the . .
See Also – Gordon v HM Advocate HCJ 6-May-2010
Appeal rejected.
Lord Carloway considered each of the grounds of appeal with meticulous care, and reflected his evaluation of the likely effect on the jury’s verdict of the additional or undisclosed evidence, and of the potential evidence which . .
Cited – Regina v Budimir and Another CACD 29-Jun-2010
The defendants sought leave to appeal out of time saying that their convictions had been under the 1984 Act which was later found to have been unenforceable for failure to comply with notification requirements under European law. The 1984 Act had . .
Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – RM and Another, Re Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission HCJ 25-Apr-2012
Lord Justice-General Hamilton considered the role of the Commission and its relationship with the court, and stated: ‘Although this court has been given the power to reject a reference in language that replicates the provision applicable to the . .
Cited – Chamberlain-Davidson, Re Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission HCJ 25-Apr-2012
. .
Cited – RMM v Her Majesty’s Advocate ScSf 29-Nov-2012
. .
See Also – Gordon, Re Judicial Review SCS 24-Jan-2013
Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission not to refer his case to the High Court in terms of section 194B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Held: The application was refused.
As to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.581027

Siddall, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 16 Mar 2009

The claimant had been imprisoned then released after his conviction for sexual assaults. He appealed against rejection of his claim for compensation. The criterion for compensation was demonstrating that something had ‘gone seriously wrong in the conduct of the trial.’
Held: The claim failed. ‘a true analysis of the law is in any event less favourable to Mr Siddall; it is not suggested that he could establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was clearly innocent thereby bringing himself within the approach advocated by Lord Steyn.’ The claimant’s case and that of the other accused discharged ta the same time were not eth same and no argument from unequality in treatment would succeed.

Judges:

Leveson LJ, Sweeney J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 482 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 133

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Harris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 10-Dec-2007
The court considered an application for compensation by a former prisoner whose conviction had been overturned. . .
triticised – In re Boyle, Judicial Review QBNI 24-Oct-2007
The court considered an appeal by the claimant against refusal of compensation where he had served a term of imprisonment, but later had his conviction overturned. The conviction had relied upon challenged admissions which two police officers . .
Cited – Clibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary, to refuse his application for compensation. He had first been convicted and imprisoned and then had his conviction quashed. The respondent did not think that the conviction was . .
See Also – Siddall and Brooke, Regina v CACD 15-Jun-2006
The court considered cases referred to it by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Each related to convictions for sexual assaults on children in care. New material including several untrue allegations by the complainants suggested that the . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Allen (formerly Harris), Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 15-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of a review of the defendant to allow her compensation after her conviction for manslaughter of her infant son was quashed.
Held: The conviction had been based on flawed expert evidence.
Article 6(2) . .
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 11-May-2011
The three claimants had each been convicted of murders and served time. Their convictions had been reversed eventually, and they now appealed against the refusal of compensation for imprisonment, saying that there had been a miscarriage of justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.323741

Bain v The Queen: PC 16 Mar 2009

(New Zealand) The defendant had at a previous Privy Council appeal had his conviction for murder overturned. He now challenged the order for a retrial, saying that subsequent disclosures made this unfair.
Held: The order was refused. The applicant had a satisfactory alternative remedy which he must use.
When considering a request to re-open a decision: ‘What will be of the greatest importance is that it should be clearly established that a significant injustice has probably occurred and that there is no alternative effective remedy.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Mance

Citations:

[2008] UKPC 6

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.320876

Hampshire Police Authority v Smith: Admn 12 Feb 2009

The Authority appealed against a decision allowing the defendant an extension of time to appeal against a closure order made under the 2003 Act.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 174 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 207

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.293918

Regina v Inner London Youth Court Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 4 Apr 1996

If a Crown Court could properly sentence youth aged between 14 and 17 to more than two years then the Magistrates should commit the youth to the Crown Court. Only if the nature of the offence was such that the Crown Court could not properly exercise its section 53(2) powers should the justices take the view they should not make it possible for the crown court to pass such a sentence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Leggatt and Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-1996

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86948

Regina v Inner London Crown Court Ex Parte Barnes (Anthony): QBD 7 Aug 1995

A youth’s name is not to be publicised merely to attract publicity to other points which the judge wishes to make.

Citations:

Times 07-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 11-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1963 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.86944

Regina v Johnson (Harold): CACD 21 Nov 2000

When a court of Appeal now assesses the fairness of a trial conducted under earlier and different standards, it must apply the current standards for the purposes of the appeal. That need imply no criticism of a court which was acting accordance with then good or standard practice. There is a risk of a substantial number of appeals for old and very old cases, if this approach is followed, but no evidence as it stands that the risk is proving real.

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.88516

Pintori, Regina v: CACD 13 Jul 2007

The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of class A drugs, saying that the drugs found had belonged to somebody who had stayed at his flat whilst he had been away. One of the jurors later told a police officer that she had known through work some of the officers on whose evidence the case was based.
Held: The knowledge of the juror could amount to an extrinsic influence on the jury, so as to allow in turn an examination by the court of its nature and effect. In this case, ‘the fact that the juror knew the officers in the case reasonably well and had worked with them is enough to satisfy the bias test as regards the individual juror. There was a real possibility that she would be influenced by these factors in reaching her verdict.’ The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Forbes J, Rogers QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 1700

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Brandon CACD 1969
The court considered whether events outside the jury room having possible effects on deliberations might leave those open to enquiry. The jury bailiff had told the jury of the accused’s previous convictions. This was a grave irregularity, was . .
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Regina v Pan 29-Jun-2001
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the reason behind the common law rule against a court examining the activities of a jury: ‘the rule seeks to preserve the secrecy of the jury’s deliberations, while ensuring that those deliberations . .
Cited – Regina v Young (Stephen) CACD 30-Dec-1994
Jury Consulting Ouija Board – Serious Irregularity
It had been suggested that during their overnight stay in a hotel after retiring to consider their verdict, some of the jurors had consultated an ouija board to consult with the deceased, and to ask him who had been his killer. Having believed that . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikov and Others CACD 28-Jul-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that the presence of police officers on the jury suggested bias.
Held: The court rejected the suggestion that police officers should, because of their occupation, be automatically . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.254581

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Lee: QBD 3 Mar 1993

An Extradition Court cannot request evidence from applicant country.

Judges:

Watkins LJ, Ognall J

Citations:

Independent 03-Mar-1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 6, [1993] 1 WLR 1294

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87325

Regina v Newport Justices Ex Parte Carey; Regina v Gwent Magistrates Court, ex parte Carey: QBD 16 Jul 1996

The defendant had written to the court to request an adjournment. The case proceeded in his absence.
Held: Justices have a broad discretion on the re-opening case after a conviction had been entered in the Defendant’s absence. The defendant retained a right of appeal under s108. The absence was the defendant’s entire responsibility. The court had shown respect for the convenience of witnesses, and a desire to show that the defendant had tested the limits of the court’s patience.

Judges:

Henry LJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1996, (1996) 160 JP 613

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87435