Tag: Criminal Practice

In re Kanaris (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus): HL 30 Jan 2003

The defendant faced charges with others on the same indictment. The judge called a preparatory hearing under the 1996 Act, against the others, but held a separate hearing for the defendant, at which he held a similar preparatory hearing for him alone. The defendant now complained that a separate hearing could not be held for different defendants, and that accordingly it was now out of time for him under the 1987 Regulations, and that he should be released.
Held: The judge had been wrong to hold that the defendants could only be arraigned together, and a preparatory hearing held for them all. There was no rule to say that they must be dealt with together. The defendant still retained some rights to apply for bail. Courts should be careful before setting up inflexible rules, and should still bear in mind the need not to deny the defendant the protection of the 1987 Regulations artificially so as to infringe his Article 5 rights.
Lord Hope said: ‘a judge who is minded to order a preparatory hearing in a long and complex case should be careful not to deprive an accused who is in custody of the protection of the statutory custody time limit until it has become necessary for him to do so. Section 32(2)(a) of the 1996 Act enables a judge to exercise the powers under section 31(4) to (7) before the preparatory hearing begins, and thus before arraignment, in a way that would be compatible with the accused’s Convention right. The use of this procedure should enable considerable progress to be made in the preparation and exchange of information before the judge engages in a detailed discussion of how the trial is to be managed, while at the same time preserving to the accused in the meantime the full protection of the statutory custody time limit.’

Judges:

Nichyols of Birkenhead, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 31-Jan-2003, [2003] UKHL 2, [2003] 1 WLR 443, [2003] 1 All ER 593, [2003] 2 Cr App Rep 1

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(6B), Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 29 30 32(2)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 5.3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Andreas Kanaris v Governor of H M P Pentonville Admn 17-Jan-2002
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the custody time limits in his matter had expired before his trial began. An application to extend the limits had to be made before the limit, and had to show proper conduct of the case. . .
Cited – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex parte Customs and Excise Commissioners QBD 1993
The court found that there was one preparatory hearing in existence, and that that had been conducted before Judge Anwyl-Davies QC. But the trial was listed for hearing before Judge Mota Singh QC, simply because of a direction by the presiding judge . .

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.178820

Regina v Jones: CACD 20 Dec 2002

The defendant might have been chaged with an offence under section 6 of the Act, of unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16, but the prosecution would have been outside the time limit of twelve months. Instead he was prosecuted for an offence under section 14 of indecent assault, but based upon the same facts. He now appealed his conviction, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The prsoecution did not, here, amount to an affront to public conscience. Where the offence did not come to light until after the time limit had expired, and there was some additional aggravating factor, a prosecution for the lesser offence was not wrong, and settled practice was to limit the sentence to what would have been available to the court under section 14.

Judges:

Mr Justice Butterfield, Lord Justice Potter, His Honour Judge Paget QC

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2002] EWCA Crim 2983, [2003] 1 WLR 1590

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sexual Offences Act 1956 6 14

Cited by:

Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Appeal from – Regina v J HL 14-Oct-2004
The defendant was to have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Proceedings could not be brought, because the allegation was more than a year old, and he was instead accused of indecent assault, but on the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178540

W, Regina (on the Application of) v Thetford Youth Justices and Another: Admn 25 Jun 2002

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Gage J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1252 (Admin), [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 67, [2002] Crim LR 681, 166 JP 453, (2002) 166 JP 453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (C and Another) v Sheffield Youth Court; Regina (N) v Sheffield Youth Court QBD 23-Jan-2003
In each case, youths had been committed to the Crown Court for trial but complained that the Youth Court should have dealt with the cases, and sought judicial review of the Youth Court decision.
Held: The test for a review of a decision of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175111

Boodram v The State: PC 10 Apr 2001

(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to assess what could be done to redress any prejudice or potential prejudice to the defendant. He also failed to pursue an allegation that the defendant had signed her confession only after being raped in the cells by a police sergeant. The appellant was accused of having murdered her husband by poisoning.
Held: Where a defence case had clearly been conducted in an incompetent manner, to an extent that the defendant could not be said to have had a fair trial, then it was appropriate to set aside the conviction which followed. An appellate court should approach complaints about counsel’s incompetence and its effects on a trial, with a healthy scepticism, but where the failure was fundamental, a court should only with great care find that the jury would have reached the same decision even with competent counsel.

Judges:

Citations: Times 15-May-2001, No 65 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 18, [2002] 1 Cr App R 103

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Citing:

Cited – Flowers v The Queen PC 30-Oct-2000
(Jamaica) Where a defendant claimed that his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, it was correct for the appellate courts to take account of the fact that it remained clear that the defendant was guilty of a . .
Cited – Reid v The Queen PC 1980
It is not in the interests of justice for the prosecution to be given a second chance to make good deficiencies in its case. The Board gave guidance on the considerations relevant to ordering a new trial: ‘… the interest of justice that is served . .
Cited – Charles, Steve Carter and Leroy Carter v The State PC 26-May-1999
(Trinidad and Tobago) A third trial for murder, with a capital sentence to follow, after a long delay, and when one verdict had been set aside, and a second jury undecided, became an abuse of process. This is usually a judge’s discretion and should . .
Cited – Lawrence Pat Sankar v State of Trinidad and Tobago PC 16-Dec-1994
(Trinidad and Tobago) An advocate’s failure to advise his client on the need for him to give evidence, and the consequences of his not doing so may be enough to justify an appeal against conviction. . .
Cited – Regina v Clinton CACD 1993
Where counsel’s conduct is called in question, the general principle requires the court to focus on the impact of the faulty conduct on the trial and result. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – Bally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Commonwealth

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174516

Forrester Bowe (Junior) v The Queen: PC 10 Apr 2001

PC (The Bahamas) The Board considered a suggestion that the defendants second re-trial for murder was an abuse of process: ‘It is a common practice for prosecutors in England and Wales to offer no evidence against a defendant if two previous juries have been unable to agree . . but that is no more than a convention, as recognised by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Henworth . . it may well be that the prosecuting authorities, having failed to obtain a conviction even by a majority on two occasions, judge that a further trial will not have a reasonable prospect of culminating in a conviction. It is in the first instance for the prosecutor to judge whether, taking account of all relevant considerations, the public interest is better served by offering no evidence or by seeking a further re-trial. There is plainly no rule of law in this country which forbids a prosecutor from seeking a second re-trial . . there may of course be cases in which, on their particular facts, a second re-trial may be oppressive and unjust . . whether a second re-trial should be permitted depends on an informed and dispassionate assessment of how the interests of justice in the widest sense are best served. Full account must be taken of the defendant’s interests . . account must also be taken of the public interest in convicting the guilty, deterring violent crime and maintaining confidence in the efficacy of the criminal justice system.’
(The Bahamas)

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Appeal No 48 of 2000, [2001] UKPC 19

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Cited by:

Cited – Bell, Regina v CACD 19-Jan-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that it had taken place only at the prosecution’s third attempt, the two earlier trials reaching no majority verdict. He said that the third trial was an abuse.
Held: There had been no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174515

Regina v Pearce: CACD 11 Dec 2001

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be treated as equivalent to that of a wife, making her evidence admissible but not compellable.
Held: As to the admission of evidence, that this was within the area of discretion allowed to convention states, and was a proper balance between the need for respect for family life, and the wider needs of the community. As to the alcohol abuse, there was no evidence of it having reached such a stage as to affect his control over how much he drank. The conviction stood.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hughes, And, Mr Justice Penry-Davey

Citations:

Times 21-Jan-2002, Gazette 21-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Crim 2834, [2002] 1 Cr App R 39, [2002] 1 WLR 1553

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 80(1), Homicide Act 1957 3

Citing:

Cited – X, Y and Z v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-1997
The court refused to find that the failure of United Kingdom law to recognise a female to male trans-sexual as the father of a donor insemination child, born to his partner and brought up as their child, was a breach of their rights to respect for . .
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camplin HL 1978
The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bala and Others, Regina v CACD 10-May-2016
The court was asked whether parties to a polygamous marriage recognised in Nigeria could be exempt thereby from a charge as co-conspirators because of s2 of the 1977 Act. The judge had held the marriage invalid after finding that the defendant was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167064

Regina v Neath and Port Talbot Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 2 Mar 2000

The magistrates had refused an adjournment of a trial after the non-attendance of the complainant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecutor applied for judicial review, but the case came on only 16 months afterwards. The court held that several factors were to be considered, including the seriousness of the charge, the evidence and effect of any delay upon it, the defendant’s contribution if any to the delay, and any justifiable feeling of aggrievement for the complainant.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88565

Regina v Croydon Justices, ex parte W H Smith Ltd: QBD 22 Nov 2000

The power to institute proceedings for a breach of the Act lay in the inspector, and he could not delegate it. The Act was explicit in its requirements as to who could issue proceedings. The informations were not laid when the inspector requested a local authority solicitor to issue them, and there was nothing to justify any inference of a power to delegate.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Nov-2000, Times 22-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 38

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88431

Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 23 Feb 2001

An order made by a judge that the prosecution pay the defence’s costs, which had been unnecessarily incurred after a failure properly to disclose evidence to them, was an order made as part of the Crown Court trial, and so was not susceptible to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88533

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Bone: QBD 8 Nov 1994

A Crown Court Judge when remanding a defendant in custody after a prosecution appeal from the Justices must give a date on which he is to be produced. Rose LJ said: ‘For my part, I accept that the Crown Court Judge is not subject to the provisions of sections 128 and 129 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. However, the detention of the Applicant, and the lawfulness or otherwise of that detention has to be gauged, as it seems to me, by reference to the provisions of the Magistrates’ Court Act because in this case the Applicant was subject to the jurisdiction of the Magistrates.’ and ‘For my part, I would have thought that the most convenient and sensible course would be, if this difficulty arises in the future, for a Crown Court to be invited by the prosecution to stipulate a date which does in fact comply with the provisions of the Magistrates’ Court Act, not because the Crown Court Judge is himself subject to the jurisdiction of that Act, but because of the lacuna in the statute which leads to the problems which are otherwise encountered.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-1994

Statutes:

Bail (Amendment) Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Remice v HMP Belmarsh Admn 27-Mar-2007
The prisoner was accused of witness intimidation. He was arrested and several bail applications and appeals were heard, but the last simply committed him to prison. He said that since this order would return him to the magistrates, a maximum of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88480

Regina v Guildford Crown Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles: QBD 29 Oct 1996

The claimant objected to the use by the respondent of orders under the 1988 Act to produce records for investigation and tracing proceeds.
Held: Simon Brown LJ said: ‘In my judgment, therefore, it would be wrong to construe the words in section 93H(1) ‘an investigation into whether any person has benefited from any criminal conduct’ for all the world as if they were synonymous with ‘an investigation into whether any conduct from which a person has benefitted was criminal, effectively the construction for which [counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions] contends.’
. . and ‘the question to be asked is this: What is the dominant purpose of the application? Is it for criminal investigation purposes – to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if so, to provide evidence of that offence – or is it to determine, in respect of criminal offending – although not necessarily a specific offence which the prosecution already has reasonable grounds for believing (rather than merely suspecting) has been committed – whether, and, if so, to what extent, someone has benefitted from it, or the whereabouts of the proceeds.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Oct-1996, [1998] QB 243

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9, Criminal Justice Act 1988 93H

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex Parte Bowles (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 7-Apr-1998
An application had been made for a production order under section 93H of the 1988 Act which was concerned with the recovery of the proceeds of criminal conduct. The issue was whether an order obtained for the purpose of assisting in the recovery of . .
Cited – Pearce and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 18-Jul-2013
The appellants challenged rejection of their complaints that actions of police officers searching their ‘squats’ when executing search warrants, were unlawful in that they had been intended not as descrbed for the search for stolen goods, but rather . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88487

Regina v Herefordshire Youth Court Ex Parte J: QBD 4 May 1998

A Youth Court having once accepted a guilty plea from a youth, advised by solicitor, could not vacate that plea, in order to consider whether the case was appropriate for a crown court trial.

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 04-May-1998

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88501

SBC v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jun 2001

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
The respondent government conceded that the absolute ban on the grant of bail to section 25 defendants provided for by section 25 violated article 5(3), insofar as it prohibited the grant of bail to defendants accused of a grave offence after being convicted for a first.

Citations:

(2001) 34 EHRR 619, [2001] ECHR 396, 39360/98, [2001] ECHR 400

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5(3), Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 25

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166136

Saidi v France: ECHR 20 Sep 1993

S had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of drug addicts and in the situation where there was no opportunity to confront the witness.
Held: ‘The court reiterates that the taking of evidence is governed primarily by the rules of domestic law, and that it is in principle for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The court’s task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair. All the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing, with a view to adversarial argument. However, the use as evidence of statements obtained at the stage of the police enquiry and judicial investigation is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6(3)(d) and (1) provided that the right to the defence had been respected. As a rule these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witness against him either when he was making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings.’ However there had been a breach of Article 6 since the testimony constituted ‘the sole basis’ for the applicant’s conviction, and the lack of any confrontation had deprived the defendant in certain respects of ‘a fair trial’. The court recognised the difficulties of the fight against drug trafficking, but ‘such considerations cannot justify restricting to this extent the rights of the defence of everyone charged with a criminal offence.’

Citations:

[1993] ECHR 39, 14647/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 251

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Illustrative – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165276

Barbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain: ECHR 6 Dec 1988

ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the accused.

Citations:

10590/83, (1988) 11 EHRR 360, [1988] ECHR 25

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165022

Director of Public Prosecutions v Petrie: Admn 21 Jan 2015

The Director appealed against discharge of their prosecution for abuse of process. On the date fixed for the trial of the Respondent on a charge of driving with excess alcohol in his breath, it was common ground that CCTV footage from the police station was required for the trial. However, the CCTV supplied by the prosecution had not been formatted and could not be played. The prosecution’s application for an adjournment was refused. The Respondent was granted a stay of proceedings on the ground of abuse of process.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 48 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.541584

Regina v Kansal, on a Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission (2): CACD 24 May 2001

Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected common law the effect could be retrospective, since common law was deemed always to have been the way it now is. The result was that standards of evidence in criminal cases had retrospectively made many convictions liable to be set aside.
‘(i) The CCRC, subject to the proper exercise of the discretion conferred by section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act, can refer to this court a conviction following a trial whenever it took place;
(ii) this court, once such a reference has been made, has no option, however old the case, but to declare the conviction unsafe if that is the result either of the admission of evidence obtained in breach of article 6 or of a change in the common law, which is deemed always to have been that which it is authoritatively declared to be, as, for example, by reason of R v Preddy’,

Judges:

Rose LJ VP, Rougier J, McCombie J

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1260, [2001] 3 WLR 751

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Kansal CACD 24-Jun-1992
K had been convicted of two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was also convicted of two counts under the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that being a bankrupt (a) he removed property which he was . .
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 by:

Appeal from – 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.

Criminal Practice, Administrative, Human Rights

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158770

Director of Public Prosecutions v Lonsdale: QBD 16 Feb 2001

Where a motorist told an officer at the roadside that he suffered from bronchitis, and could not provide a specimen of breath, and he wanted to rely upon the same reason at the police station, he could not claim that the officer in the station should know of his objection, but should make it clear again. It was not open to him to say nothing at all, to make no attempt to provide a specimen, and then later to seek to assert a reasonable excuse for not providing a specimen of breath. There was no need to look at the two sections concurrently. The later subsection had been irrelevant in this matter.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 16-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 7(1)(a), 7(3)(a), 7(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.80029

Regina v Ali, Regina v Rasool (Mauritius): PC 25 Mar 1992

The Mauritian Director of Public Prosecution’s combined duty prosecute and power to select the trial court with different penalties, infringed the constitutional need to maintain the separation of powers.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Mar-1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Constitutional, Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.88370

Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan: Admn 18 May 1999

Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the extension.

Citations:

Times 31-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 454

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(a) 22(3)(b)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Gibson and Another) v Winchester Crown Court QBD 24-Feb-2004
The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139718

Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service: CACD 21 Jul 2004

The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of criminal damage.
Held: International law was to be allowed for in national law. The rule of international law underlying the concept of the international crime of aggression is capable of having effect in domestic law, but not necessarily to create a crime of aggression here. Nevertheless, necessity might afford a defence to the defendants in the light of their beliefs, and the court will have to consider that. However, ‘the question of the legality of the war in Iraq is not therefore a matter which arises in these cases.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham Mr Justice Gibbs His Honour Judge Richard Brown Dl

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1981, [2005] QB 259

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 , Criminal Damage Act 1971, International Criminal Court Act 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others QBD 17-Dec-2002
The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A . .
Cited – West Rand Central Gold Mining Company v Rex 1905
The court considered whether international law could form part of the criminal law of England
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘The second proposition urged by Lord Robert Cecil, that international law forms part of the law of England, requires a word . .
Cited – Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney-General for Canada PC 1931
The Board was asked how to identify whether an allegation amounted to a criminal one. Lord Atkin said: ‘It appears to their Lordships to be of little value to seek to confine crimes to a category of acts which by their very nature belong to the . .
Cited – Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.
Cited – In re Piracy jure gentium PC 1934
Charges of piracy were brought against Chinese Nationals who had pursued and attacked a cargo junk. They were indicted in Hong Kong for the crime of piracy and found guilty subject to a question of law: ‘Whether an accused person may be convicted of . .
Cited – Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council CA 1988
The court asked the extent to which international law forms part of the law of this country. Nourse LJ said: ‘For up to two and a half centuries it has been generally accepted amongst English judges and jurists that international law forms part of . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Hutchinson v Newbury Magistrates Court QBD 9-Oct-2000
The appellant’s conviction for criminal damage to a fence at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston was upheld by the Crown Court; and she appealed by way of case stated to the Divisional Court, maintaining that she had acted in order to . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Cited – Regina v Martin (Colin) CACD 29-Nov-1988
Defence of Necessity has a Place in Criminal Law
The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said he had felt obliged to drive his stepson to work because his stepson had overslept. His wife (who had suicidal tendencies) had been threatening suicide unless he . .
Cited – Regina v Abdul-Hussain; Regina v Aboud; Regina v Hasan CACD 17-Dec-1998
The law of the defence of duress arising out of threat or circumstances is in need of urgent parliamentary clarification. Appeals were allowed where the defendants hijacked an airplane in order to escape deportation to a hostile country. ‘The . .
Cited – Regina v Shayler CACD 28-Sep-2001
Duress as Defence not closely Defined
The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made . .

Cited by:

Applied – Ayliffe and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Apr-2005
The case concerned actions taken at military bases by way of protest against the Iraq war. Each raised questions arising from the prosecution of the appellants for offences of aggravated trespass. The defendants asserted, among other things, that . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.199310

Regina v Schofield: CACD 1993

After the jury’s verdict, a juror asked the bailiff if the jury could have asked a question, and on receiving an affirmative response, the juror went on to say that the jury had not understood the offence of affray and had written a note to that effect. Such a note was found in the jury room, and the court was invited to consider what transpired between the juror and the bailiff, but the argument was rejected on the ground that to give any meaning to that conversation it would be necessary to lift the veil of secrecy from the jury room and enquire what had happened within.

Citations:

(1993) CLR 217

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.183499

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Garland J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137504

Regina v York Magistrate Court ex parte Grimes: Admn 12 May 1997

The defendant sought judicial review of the decision of the magistrates to commit her to prison for non-payment of fines. The had found wilful neglect to pay.
Held: The magistrates had erred in thinking that the variability of the defendant’s wage disallowed an attachment order. The committal was quashed and the case remitted for rehearing.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 461, (1997) 161 JPN 794, [1998] BPIR 642, 161 JP 550

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Oldham Justices ex parte Crawley (orse Cawley) 1996
The court set out the duties of magistrates when making a warrant for committal. Simon Brown LJ said that where there has been a criminal conviction the courts have firmly excluded collateral attack by habeas corpus, holding that the only proper . .
Cited – Regina v Newark Justices ex parte Keenaghan and R v Stockport Justices ex parte Conlon Admn 18-Dec-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137406

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another, Ex Parte Finninvest Spa and Others: QBD 23 Oct 1996

The referral of an approach from the Italian authorities for help to the Serious Fraud Office was not wrong. Where assistance is being given to an authority abroad in relation to an on-going investigation both the letter of request and the draft warrant are likely of necessity to be drawn in wide terms. The 1990 Act ‘created a wholly new scheme for mutual assistance with regard to criminal investigations, a scheme under which it would plainly be necessary to examine altogether more material than would ultimately constitute evidence at any trial.’ and ‘What is under investigation here is, after all, as the respondents point out, a wide-ranging, multi-faceted, international fraud involving far-reaching allegations against a large number of individuals in connection with an even larger number of companies. Considering, moreover, that it is at the investigative stage, one can hardly look to greater particularisation of the offences than is contained in the letter of request. So far from this being a fishing expedition, specific allegations of fact are made concerning the. setting up of an elaborate network of overseas companies and the various ways in which. the false accounting has been committed. The documentation which it is believed will establish or support these allegations is or rather was with C.M.M. Ltd and Mr Mills. In short the request for assistance here is not, as the applicants contend, vague and speculative; rather it is as precise and focussed as such a. request could sensibly be in these circumstances. ‘

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Gage J

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 142, [1997] 1 WLR 743, [1995] 2 BCLC 585, [1997] COD 94, [1997] Crim LR 213, [1997] 1 Cr App R 257, [1997] 1 All ER 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 1990, European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87815

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2): QBD 29 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice. A decision maker may treat submissions about the decision differently if they are only allowed after it has been made when ‘it is difficult to suppose that [a decision maker] can remain as open-minded as if no clear decision has been taken’ and ‘The guiding principle should always be that sufficient disclosure should be given to enable the petitioner properly to present his best case.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Independent 29-Nov-1994, Times 02-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 734

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .

Cited by:

Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP CA 21-Dec-2004
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Bamber CA 15-Feb-1996
The right of a prisoner to provide a recorded message for a radio station could properly be curtailed. . .
See Also – Bamber v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Sep-1997
The Commission declared inadmissible a complaint that Standing Order 5 G 2B infringed Article 10. The Order precluded prisoners from contacting the media by telephone except in exceptional circumstances. The Standing Order satisfied the requirement . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department (ex parte Bamber) Admn 24-Apr-1998
The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of a decision as to his release made on the basis of his refusal to accept his guilt. . .
See Also – Bamber v Regina CACD 12-Dec-2002
. .
See Also – Bamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Administrative, Prisons

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.87750

Regina v Jennings, Regina v Johnson, Regina v Mullins: CACD 6 Sep 1993

No appeal lies against a Crown Court decision not to sever an indictment at a preparatory hearing. As an interlocutory order no appeal lay.

Citations:

Ind Summary 18-Oct-1993, Ind Summary 06-Sep-1993, Times 29-Oct-1993, (1993) 98 Cr App R 308

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 7(1) 9(11)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Gunawardena, Harbutt and Banks CACD 1990
The defendant applied to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.
Held: The application for leave to appeal was rejected. The application to stay was not within the ambit of the preparatory hearing and therefore . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Claydon; Regina v Regina v Hall; Regina v Costall; Regina v French CACD 13-Jun-2001
The defendants faced substantial trials involving drugs offences. At a preparatory hearing the court made decisions about abuse of process and as to what evidence might be admitted. The prosecutor said there was no right of appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.86995

Regina v Setz-Dempsey and Another: CACD 24 Jun 1993

Mental illness is included in the meaning ‘Unfit to attend as a witness’. The admission of statements under s25 quite different from s26 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1993, Independent 24-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 23(2) 25 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.88003

Welland, Regina v: CACD 14 Sep 2018

The defendant appealed from his conviction for causing injury from dangerous driving. During his trial he suffered epileptic fits which were witnessed by the jury. The trial continued in part in his absence. He said that a new trial should have been ordered.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the appellant’s conviction is unsafe because the decision to proceed with the trial was made without proper regard to the principle that an accused is entitled to a fair trial, which includes a fair opportunity to give evidence in his own defence.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Lewis, Carr DBE JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2036

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.622343

Mckeown v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Jan 2011

The applicant alleged that his trial for terrorism related offences was unfair because of the way the courts in Northern Ireland had approached the question of non-disclosure of prosecution papers to the defence on grounds of public interest immunity.

Citations:

[2011] ECHR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – McKeown v The United Kingdom ECHR 1-Apr-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Northern Ireland

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.443850

BW, Regina (on The Application of) v Caernarfon Youth Court and Another: Admn 27 Mar 2013

The defendant youth having been convicted on his plea of several sexual offences, now sought judicial review of the decision to commit him to the Crown Court for sentence.

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Wyn Williams J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1466 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 3C

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510802

Stanford v United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Apr 1994

A defendant’s difficulty in hearing the case because of a screen erected to protect the identity of witnesses did not vitiate the trial or make it unfair. The right to a fair trial included the right to be present and in a position to follow the proceedings.

Judges:

R. Ryssdal, P

Citations:

Ind Summary 11-Apr-1994, Times 08-Mar-1994, 16757/90, [1994] Ser A No 282-A, [1994] ECHR 6

Links:

Worldlii, HUDOC, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Smellie CCA 1919
The defendant was accused of mistreating his eleven year old daughter. He was ordered to sit upon the stairs leading to the dock, out of her sight, in order to avoid her being intimidated.
Held: A judge could, using the courts own powers to . .
Cited – Rex v Lee Kun CCA 1916
Accused must hear and understand the proceedings
A judge, from the moment he embarks upon a trial until he is functus officio that trial, is under a duty to ensure that both the process and substance of the trial is fair, and that both are duly compliant with appropriate principles. Lord Reading . .

Cited by:

Cited – SC v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected ; Costs and expenses . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89490

Lawrence Pat Sankar v State of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 16 Dec 1994

(Trinidad and Tobago) An advocate’s failure to advise his client on the need for him to give evidence, and the consequences of his not doing so may be enough to justify an appeal against conviction.

Citations:

Independent 12-Jan-1995, Times 28-Dec-1994, [1994] UK PC 1, [1995] 1 WLR 194, No 22 of 1993, [1994] UKPC 49

Links:

PC, Bailii, Bailii

Cited by:

distinguished – Codrington v the Queen (Belize) PC 27-Mar-1996
The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had two grounds of appeal, that the judge had failed to get right the burden of proof, and that his counsel had not allowed him to give evidence when he had wanted to. The case was remitted. Although . .
Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Cited – Anderson v HM Advocate HCJ 1996
The court considered the effect on a conviction of a failure by defence counsel. After considering the authorities: ‘It can only be said to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice if it has deprived the accused of his right to a fair trial. That . .
Cited – Bally Sheng Balson v The State PC 2-Feb-2005
PC (Dominica) The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his partner and appealed the conviction.
Held: The case did not fall within the case of Anderson, and counsel’s failure was not such as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89005

Regina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Ellison: QBD 1990

Bingham LJ said: ‘If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is the duty of the court to inquire into the situation and ensure that its procedure is not being so abused. Usually no doubt such inquiry will be prompted by a complaint on the part of the defendant. But the duty of the court in my view exists even in the absence of a complaint.’
Leggatt J said: ‘Where a prosecutor applies to withdraw one charge and substitute another, which on the face of it is less serious, the magistrates’ court will ordinarily have no reason to object, and indeed no ground for doing so, provided that their powers of sentence remain sufficient. Here it is said that the stipendiary magistrate should have required the prosecutor to proceed on the charge of attempted theft instead of the charge of interfering with a motor vehicle, because the effect of the substitution was, as it is put, to deprive the defendant of his right to trial by jury. It is therefore said to have constituted an abuse of process, notwithstanding that the applicant was thereby rendered vulnerable to a less severe maximum punishment.
The key to the determination of this case appears to me to be that a defendant arraigned in a magistrates’ court has in truth no absolute right to trial by jury. Whether he has such a right depends on the charge which is preferred against him. Until the more serious charge . . was withdrawn the applicant enjoyed such a prospective right, but in relation to the less serious charge he did not. To speak of depriving the applicant of his right to trial by jury is . . only a pejorative way of making the point that upon reduction of the charge he ceased to be confronted by a charge sufficiently serious to warrant a right to trial by jury. In the absence of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor or of unfairness or prejudice to the accused, the prosecutor’s motive in making the substitution was irrelevant. The question is whether the substitution is in this sense a proper one.’
and ‘Whilst it is no doubt preferable that the charge ultimately made against a defendant should be correct in the first place that cannot always occur.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ, Leggatt J

Citations:

[1990] RTR 220

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Louca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.380336

Regina v Mitchell: CACD 1977

The court considered the effect of changes in the law after a conviction on applications for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Lane LJ said: ‘This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It should be clearly understood, and this Court wants to make it even more abundantly clear, that the fact there has been an apparent change in the law or, to put it more precisely, that previous misconceptions about the meaning of a statute have been put right, does not afford a proper ground for allowing an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction.’

Judges:

Lane LJ

Citations:

(1977) 65 Cr App R 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Regina v Hawkins (Paul) CACD 2-Aug-1996
The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, . .
Cited – Steele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
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.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.244710

Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc: CACD 24 May 2001

The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some charges, but wanted guidance on the rest. They were called into court and gave verdicts which were inconsistent with the first note. On further retirement they sent a second note wich indicated that the verdicts taken were wrong.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Thoughit would have been better if the judge had disclosed the full text of the jury’s first note immediately, it had not in fact affected the value of the verdict.
A trial judge has a discretion to accept an amendment to a jury verdict, but only in circumstances which disallowed the possibility of there having been a change of mind. The jury had delayed 27 minutes before delivering a note to the judge indicating a desire to alter the verdict. That delay was too long, and the verdict stood.

Judges:

Rose LJ VP CACD, Hunt, Mackay JJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Andrews 1986
Two defendants were tried for causing injuries to one child. The jury convicted the female defendant, of positive acts of cruelty against the child and returned a verdict of not guilty of those acts in respect of the male defendant. After the police . .
Cited – Lalchan Nanan v The State PC 1986
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might . .
Cited – Rex v Green 1950
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Any communication between a jury and the presiding judge must be read out in court, so that both parties, the prosecution and the defence, may know what the jury are asking and what is the answer ‘ . .
Cited – Regina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .
Cited – Ramstead v The Queen PC 2-Dec-1998
New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material . .
Cited – Regina v Maloney CACD 25-Mar-1996
The jury retired on a Friday. They did not agree and a majority direction was given. Later the clerk asked the foreman whether at least 10 of the jury were agreed upon a verdict. He answered, ‘Yes’. Asked what the verdict was, the foreman answered, . .
Cited – Regina v Townsend 1982
Where a judge in a criminal trial received a note from the jury as to voting intentions, it would have both been possible and appropriate for the judge to tell counsel that he had a note showing unanimity on some counts and a division of opinion on . .
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 Froud CACD 1990
The defendant appealed saying that the judge had wrongly accepted an amendment of the jury’s verdict.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The verdict of not guilty had been corrected almost instantaneously and the judge had rightly exercised his . .
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 Follon CACD 1994
The conviction was quashed where the jury, having been unable to agree and been discharged, there was a disturbance in the public gallery. The judge asked the jury to retire again and they returned a verdict of guilty. . .
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Maxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88687

Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others: CACD 12 Jun 2001

When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It is clear that the duty of the Court of Appeal when exercising this jurisdiction is not merely to review the decision of the trial judge who made the order under challenge, but rather to come to its own independent conclusions on the material placed before it’

Judges:

Longmore LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1075, [2001] 1 WLR 1983

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 159, European Convention on Human Rights 6 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88666

Regina v Charles, Regina v Tucker: CACD 20 Feb 2001

Charles had absconded on the day he was convicted of robbery shortly before the summing up. He was arrested over a year later and sentenced. He gave instructions to his solicitors to advance and renew his applications for leave to appeal conviction and the necessary extension of time. Tucker had absconded two days before he was convicted of sexual assaults and he remained unlawfully at large at the time of the hearing before the Court. His solicitors submitted grounds of appeal against conviction and maintained that they were still in touch with him and had his authority to proceed.
Held: Courts should allow some flexibility in dealing with appeals out of time by defendants convicted in their absence after absconding. The former more rigorous approach of R v Jones should not be followed in the light of the re-inforced need for a fair trial.

Judges:

Rose VP CACD LJ, Hooper, Goldring JJ

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1755, [2001] 2 Cr App R 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Cited by:

Cited – Suchedina v Regina; similar CACD 27-Oct-2006
Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: . .
Cited – Okedare, Regina v CACD 27-Feb-2014
The court heard applications for leave to appeal on behalf of applicants who had either absconded or disappeared.
Held: The court considered whether the lawyers filing the appeals had authority, whether express or implied. ‘we are satisfied . .
Applied – Riley and Others, Regina v CACD 1-Nov-2012
Two of the applicants had absconded. One of them Bradley absconded during his first trial, and was convicted in his absence at a re-trial. He sought to persuade the Court that grounds of appeal lodged on his behalf by counsel and solicitors who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88408

Regina v West (Rosemary): CACD 3 Apr 1996

Payments to witnesses in criminal trials by media need investigation and control. Nevertheless, the fact that a number of witnesses had sold their stories to the media before the trial, which was disclosed to the defence before or during the trial, was not considered to give rise to even an arguable ground of appeal. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘But, however lurid the reporting, there can scarcely ever have been a case more calculated to shock the public who were entitled to know the facts. The question raised on behalf of the defence is whether a fair trial could be held after such intensive publicity adverse to the accused. In our view, it could. To hold otherwise would mean that if allegations of murder are sufficiently horrendous so as inevitably to shock the nation, the accused cannot be tried. That would be absurd. Moreover, providing the judge effectively warns the jury to act only on the evidence given in court, there is no reason to suppose that they would do otherwise.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-1996, [1996] 2 Cr App R 374, 95/7813/S2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Steele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88287

Regina v Ealing Magistrates’ Court ex parte Satnam Sahota: QBD 10 Nov 1997

A delay in appeal against a decision taken in the absence of the accused is not the sole ground to be considered for the refusal of a rehearing.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 09-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 993

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1995

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86609

Regina (Wardle) v Leeds Crown Court: HL 24 May 2001

The defendant had been held in custody awaiting committal on a murder charge. An additional charge of manslaughter was added. The defendant argued that this did not constitute a new offence so as to allow an extension of custody time limits.
Held: The issue was the actual information laid before the magistrates and whether the second one constituted a different offence. If it did, the custody time limits restarted in the absence of some abuse. The regulations did not infringe the defendant’s human right to liberty.
Lord Hope said that before having recourse to section 3 one must first be satisfied that the ordinary construction of the provision gives rise to an incompatibility.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Scott of Foscote

Citations:

Gazette 24-May-2001, Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] UKHL 12, [2001] 2 All ER 1, [2001] 2 Cr App Rep 20, [2001] 2 WLR 865, (2001) 165 JPN 327, [2001] ACD 82, (2001) 165 JP 465, [2001] HRLR 29

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 4, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – ANS and Another v ML SC 11-Jul-2012
The mother opposed adoption proceedings, and argued that the provision in the 2007 Act, allowing a court to dispense with her consent, infringed her rights under Article 8 and was therefore made outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86017

Ramstead v The Queen: PC 2 Dec 1998

New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material irregularity

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1998, [1998] UKPC 47, [1999] 2 WLR 698, [1999] 2 AC 92

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Endorsed – Regina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85663

Regina v Campbell: CACD 14 Jul 1994

The judge is to give the jury a warning as to the strength and reliability of a handicapped person’s statement made in the absence of an appropriate adult, unless the case was strong without it.

Citations:

Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 29-Aug-1994

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86284

Regina v Shannon (Also Known As Alford): CACD 11 Oct 2000

The defendant had been enticed to commit a crime involving supply of controlled drugs by a journalist acting as an agent provocateur.
Held: Entrapment is not a defence in UK law. It was open to the judge hearing the prosecution to exclude the evidence on the grounds that it was unfair, but there was no principle which required its exclusion. When considering whether or not to exclude the evidence on the basis that the offence had been committed at the behest of an agent provocateur, the mere fact of entrapment was not of itself sufficient to justify exclusion. Before excluding such evidence the judge must consider the effect of the entrapment on the unfairness of the proceedings as a whole.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Hidden And Her Honour Judge Ann Goddard QC

Citations:

Times 11-Oct-2000, Gazette 19-Oct-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 1535, [2001] 1 Cr App R 168

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Smurthwaite; Regina v Gill CACD 5-Oct-1993
It is not a defence merely to show that there had been entrapment or the use of an agent provocateur, but the Judge has a discretion to exclude the evidence obtained if it would be unfair to use it. The need is to ensure a fair trial. . .

Cited by:

Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85550

Regina v Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove: QBD 17 Jun 1999

The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : ‘While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine’.

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 499, [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18

Cited by:

Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Brooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection Admn 25-May-2006
The defendant company had been convicted of failing to keep proper drugs records in the nursing home it ran.
Held: The prosecution by the CSCI ws necessarily authorised by the CSCI. As to the issue of intention, the offences alleged were ones . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85434

Preston Borough Council v McGrath: ChD 18 Feb 1999

The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose, implied no similar cross undertaking on behalf of the prosecution. The purpose of the undertaking is not served by such an implication.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Preston Borough Council v McGrath CA 12-May-2000
The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Local Government, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85029

Regina v Cairns: CACD 8 Mar 2000

It might still be proper for the Court of Appeal to admit evidence on an appeal which had not been made available on the trial, even though there appeared no sufficient reason why it had not been presented. Where the evidence was expert evidence which would have been admissible, was capable of belief, and might have based grounds for an appeal, and if the interests of justice and expediency so required, it could be admitted by the appellate court.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 21

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85163

Mitchell v The Queen: PC 24 Jan 1998

(Bahamas) The judge’s decision on a voire dire to determine the admissibility of a confession should not be revealed to the jury since it might cause unfair prejudice to the defendant by conveying the impression that the judge had reached a concluded view on the credibility of the relevant witnesses and of the defendant. Lord Steyn said: ‘The vice is that the knowledge by the jury that the judge has believed the police and disbelieved the defendant creates the potentiality of prejudice. A jury of laymen, or some of them, might be forgiven for saying: ‘Well the judge did not believe the defendant, why should we believe him?’ At the very least it creates the risk that the jury, or some of them, may be diverted from grappling properly and independently with a defendant’s allegations of oppression so far as it is relevant to their decision. And such an avoidable risk of prejudice cannot be tolerated in regard to a procedure designed to protect a defendant.’ and as to whether this defect could be cured by the judge’s directions: ‘This was a serious irregularity, notably because it was calculated to convey to the jury that the judge had arrived at a concluded view that he ought to accept the evidence of the police witnesses and Franklyn Williams and reject the evidence of the defendant. That was the basis on which the jury then heard the evidence about the confessions over a number of days. The judge did not subsequently tell the jury to ignore his decision as to voluntariness of the confessions. For these reasons their Lordships cannot accept the Crown’s preliminary submission that the irregularity was ex post facto cured.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-1998, [1998] UKPC 1, [1998] AC 695

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
Cited – Taylor v The Queen PC 13-Mar-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that admissions against each other by the co-defendants had been entered in evidence despite his allegations of police mistreatment. The statement was the only . .
Cited – Mitcham v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The applicant appealed against his sentence of death following his conviction for murder. He had been granted a stay of execution pending the appeal to the board and had since been given leave to appeal against . .
Applied – Thompson v The Queen PC 16-Feb-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit . .
Cited – Krishna v The State PC 6-Jul-2011
krishna_statePC11
(Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant appealed against his conviction for murder, complaining as to the way a former co-accused had been allowed to give evidence and the admission of a confession, saying that he had been beaten by police officers.
Cited – Williams v The Queen PC 25-Apr-2006
PC Jamaica – the appellant had been twelve when convicted on his own confession of murder. He said that the statement after oppression. The statement had been challenged but admitted without following the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83776

In Re Sternberg Reed Taylor and Gill (A Firm): CACD 26 Jul 1999

Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of ‘unnecessary or improper act or omission’ so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the case with the defendant. A re-trial was necessary, and could easily have been avoided.

Citations:

Times 26-Jul-1999, Gazette 11-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1870

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 3(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Costs

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82203

Elliott (Angus Gordon) v HM Advocate: HCJ 24 Mar 1995

New evidence on an appeal was admissible only in accordance with the Act.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Ross

Citations:

Times 16-May-1995, 1995 JC 95, [1995] ScotHC HCJ – 2, 1995 SLT 612, 1995 SCCR 280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 228(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Fraser v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 25-May-2011
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain matters.
Held: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was quashed and the case remitted to the Scottish courts to consider . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80299

Dunkley and Robinson v The Queen: PC 1 Nov 1994

(Jamaica) The appellant’s counsel had walked out of a murder trial after a dispute with the judge, leaving the appellant unrepresented for the remainder of the proceedings.
Held: A defendant in a capital murder case is to be allowed to find new counsel after his counsel quit. A case which had continued without this being allowed was unfair: ‘. . . where a defendant faces a capital charge and is left unrepresented through no fault of his own the interest of justice require that in all but the most exceptional cases there be a reasonable adjournment to enable him to try and secure alternative representation.’

Citations:

Independent 01-Nov-1994, Gazette 09-Nov-1994, [1995] 1 AC 419

Citing:

Applied – Robinson v The Queen PC 1985
Where a defendant found himself unrepresented on the day of trial, an adjournment should be granted. The constitutional right to representation was not a guarantee of representation but a right for the defendant to arrange representation at his own . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
Cited – Gianchand Jahree v The State PC 28-Feb-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of counterfeit bank notes, saying he had been unrepresented throughout, and that the magistrate had intervened in the character of a prosecutor.
Held: The right to representation . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Cited – Delroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80170

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Debenhams Plc: QBD 16 Aug 1994

A search by Trading Standards officers was subject to the PACE codes of Practice even though it may be described as a routine inspection. The officers had an obligation to specify the power under which they acted.

Citations:

Times 16-Aug-1994

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80156

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cottier: QBD 22 Feb 1996

Proceedings against a youth begin at court; notice need not be given to the youth panel before the charge itself is made at police station. When considering whether proceedings have been ‘begun’ in any court for the section Saville LJ, said: ‘We were referred to a number of authorities which considered somewhat similar provisions, but all I glean from those is that the answer to the question when proceedings are instituted or begun depends on the context in which the words are used and the purpose of the provision.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 826

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1969 34(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79996

Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara: QBD 16 Jul 2001

The defendant had been interviewed at the police station, and told that, in the light of his admission, he would be cautioned. He returned with a solicitor, who said that before he could advise his client to accept the caution, he needed to hear the interview tape, and to see the evidence. The police refused access, and the defendant was charged. He then successfully applied for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The prosecutor appealed. The court said that without that information, the solicitor could not properly advise his client. The defendant was entitled to informed legal advice. This should not be taken as creating a general obligation on police to provide wide ranging disclosure before charge.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Silber J

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001

Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79980

Crummock (Scotland) Ltd v Hm Advocate: HCJ 9 May 2000

A company was charged with causing a contamination of the water over a large area, and the jury was drawn from that same area, and therefore might contain members who had drunk the water alleged to have been contaminated. The issues surrounding the impartiality of a jury were different from those about a judge. They were selected at random from a wide area. It was fallacious to view them as potential complainants.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79701

Rupert Crosdale v The Queen: PC 6 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) A court’s insistence that a submission of no case to answer must be made in the presence of jury was unfair. When considering submissions of no case to answer, the judge should invite the jury to retire and, if he decided to reject the plea, he should say nothing to the jury about it. Where in any case the jury had remained in court during the submissions, the question for the appeal court would be whether in the circumstances of the case there was any significant risk of prejudice having resulted from the irregularity.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 864, [1995] UKPC 1, Appeal No 13 of 1994

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Adams and Frederick Lawrence v Regina PC 18-Mar-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed against convictions for non-capital murder. Because of delays, the defendants had served almost the full minimum sentence.
Held: The trial judge had heard a plea of no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79678

Chan Wai-Keung v The Queen: PC 10 Jan 1994

(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial. What was required was that the potential fallibility of [the witness] should be put squarely before the jury, and this is what was done.’
Evidence from a convict looking for a reduced sentence was admissible with an appropriate warning.

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-1994, Independent 10-Jan-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 194, [1994] UKPC 47

Links:

Bailii

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

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971

Cable et Al v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Feb 1999

The English Courts martial system did not give a fair trial because the role of the convening officer meant that the tribunal was not sufficiently independent or impartial since the officer might outrank the court and could dissolve the proceedings.
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.

Judges:

L Wildhaber P

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, (2000) 30 EHRR 1032, 24436/94;24582/94;24583/94;, [1999] ECHR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78815

British Waterways Board v Norman: QBD 11 Nov 1993

A solicitor cannot claim payment from the other party of costs he would not ask his own client to pay. An implied contingency agreement with his client could defeat a claim for payment of costs from the other party. There was never any intention on the part of the solicitors to create any liability for their own costs if the proceedings failed. It therefore followed that they sought to conduct the case on a contingency basis, such basis being contrary to public policy in any criminal trial such as this.

Citations:

Ind Summary 29-Nov-1993, Times 11-Nov-1993, [1993] 22 HLR 232

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79

Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Housing

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78651

Brooks v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: PC 2 Mar 1994

(Jamaica) The DPP successfully applied for a voluntary bill after the resident magistrate had discharged the defendant on the ground that having heard the evidence, there was no case to answer. The challenge to the DPP’s decision to seek a voluntary bill was advanced not on the ground of double jeopardy, but rather of abuse of process.
Held: The DPP or the judge should treat the decision of the resident magistrate with the greatest respect and regard their jurisdiction as one to be exercised with great circumspection. There have to be exceptional circumstances to warrant prosecuting a defendant after it has been found in committal proceedings that there is no case to answer. Nevertheless, a judge has the power to issue a voluntary bill of indictment ex parte.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 02-Mar-1994, [1994] 1 AC 568, [1994] UKPC 1

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78679

Bank of England v Gibson: QBD 9 May 1994

A court need not be satisfied as to the exact date of a theft, in order to make a finding that a theft had happened. The level of proof required in civil fraud cases will vary with the seriousness of allegation.

Citations:

Times 09-May-1994, Ind Summary 30-May-1994

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78155

Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001): CACD 12 Jul 2001

When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a suspect could suffer material prejudice from the date of the interview, that would often not be the case. The previous law was that a stay for abuse of process should be granted only in exceptional cases and where the defendant could show that because of the delay he would suffer serious prejudice which denied him the chance of a fair trial. Under Human Rights law, proceedings should still only be stayed where the conduct of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the proceedings of the courts.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Wright and Grigson JJ

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1869, [2001] EWCA Crim 1568

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Citing:

Followed – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 3-Jun-1992
The jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings on the ground of delay is exceptional, even where the delay was unjustifiable, and a stay should rarely be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution, and should . .

Cited by:

Cited – Plinio Galfetti v Regina CACD 31-Jul-2002
The defendant had been convicted of various offences of violence but then was then to be held in a secure mental hospital. A place was not available, and an order only became available some nine months later, at which time, he argued that the order . .
Cited – Regina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Ashton, Lyons and Webber CACD 6-Dec-2002
The appellants had appealed sentences for conspiracy to murder. There had been an inordinate delay between leave to appeal having been granted, and the appeal being heard.
Held: The appellants’ rights had been infringed by the delay, and they . .
Cited – Aaron v The Law Society (the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors) QBD 13-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged an order suspending him from practice as a solicitor for two years. He had previous findings of professional misconduct in failing to pay counsels’ fees. In the course of later disciplinary proceedings he was found to have . .
Cited – Lloyd v Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 8-Oct-2003
The defendant had been convicted and made subect to a confiscation order in 1996. A final order for enforcement was made in late 2002. The defendant said the delay in the enforcement proceedings was a breach of his right to a trial within a . .
Appeal from – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Regina v S (Crime: delay in prosecution) CACD 6-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction saying that the prosecution should have been stayed permanently because of the delay in bringing the case. He had been sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for sexual assaults committed in the 1970s.
Held: A . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Bentham Admn 2003
At the trial of a substantive claim for declarations of property rights in the context of confiscation proceedings under the 1986 Act, two interested parties sought to dismissal or stay of the claims dismissed for delay. The proceedings went back to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77964

Attorney-General v Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd: QBD 31 Aug 1998

The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict liability rules did not help. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It seems to me necessarily to follow . . that one and the same publication may well constitute a contempt and yet, even though not substantially mitigated in its effect by a temporary stay and/or change of venue, not so prejudice the trial as to undermine the safety of any subsequent conviction. To my mind that can only be because section 2(2) postulates a lesser degree of prejudice than is required to make good an appeal against conviction . . In short section 2(2) is designed to avoid (and where necessary punish) publications even if they merely risk prejudicing proceedings, whereas a stay will generally only be granted where it is recognised that any subsequent conviction would otherwise be imperilled, and a conviction will only be set aside . . if it is actually unsafe.’
As to the case of Unger, Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I still think that to create a seriously arguable ground of appeal is a sufficient basis for finding strict liability contempt. Clearly it is a relevant consideration too that when a judge at first instance is deciding whether or not to grant a temporary stay. But more particularly the trial judge will ask himself: ‘is there a real danger that the jury cannot reach a just verdict, or the defendant have a fair trial?’ The judge will have to form a view as to just how seriously prejudicial the publication is, to what extent it can be mitigated by special directions, how desirable it is to avert a possible risk of a successful appeal on that ground, and how inconvenient and costly in the particular circumstances a stay would be (depending in large part no doubt on how far into the trial the problem arises).’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Thomas J

Citations:

Times 31-Aug-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 769, [1999] 1 WLR 361, [1999] EMLR 39, [1998] 4 All ER 49

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited Admn 3-Jul-1997
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had . .

Cited by:

Cited – Allen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.77978

Ex parte Central Independent Television: 1991

An appeal under section 159 can be made even after the reporting restriction order has been discharged.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 4

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 159

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sarker, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2018
The defendant was to face trial under the 2006 Act. He applied for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the reporting of the proceedings on the grounds that knowledge by the jury of the inquiry and police investigation would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620601

Regina v Offield: CACD 2002

The court considered as an additional ground allowing the withdrawal of an abandonment of an appeal: ‘bad advice given by some legal advisor which has resulted in an unintended, ill considered decision to abandon the appeal’.

Judges:

Judge LJ, nHunt J and Keith J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Crim 1630

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Medway CACD 1976
The court had jurisdiction to give an applicant or appellant leave to withdraw a notice of abandonment of appeal or application for leave to appeal only where the notice of abandonment can be treated as a nullity.
Lawson J said: ‘The answer to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Ahmed, Regina v CACD 29-Jul-2010
The defendant had lodged an appeal from his conviction, but then abandoned it. He now sought to have that treated as a nullity.
Held: The application had not shown grounds which might allow the withdrawal of the abandonment, and was refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.620168

B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 8 Feb 2018

Bail conditions only after detention

B had been held under immigration detention, but released by SIAC, purportedly in conditional bail, after they found there was no realistic prospect of his deportation because he had not disclosed his true identity. The court was asked ‘whether there exists a power under the 1971 Act to grant immigration bail to a person who can no longer be lawfully detained.’
Held: The HS’ appeal failed. The statutory provisions allowed limits to be placed on an individuals freedom and had to be strictly and restrictively interpreted. That would not allow the addition of such a power by inference.
Parliament is presumed not to interfere with the liberty of a subject without making such an intention clear. The focus here was on a power not of executive detention but to grant bail. Being detained was a condition precedent for the question of bail to arise.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 5, [2018] WLR(D) 81, [2018] AC 418, [2018] HRLR 10, [2018] 2 All ER 759, [2018] 2 WLR 651, [2018] INLR 315, UKSC 2015/0147

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, Sc Sumary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 Nov 14 am Video, SC 2017 Nov 14 pm Video, SC 2017 Nov 15 am Video, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At SIAC – B v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 30-Jul-2008
Appeal against an order made by the Secretary of State that it will be conducive to the public good that he should be deported, on the grounds that his removal is in the interests of national security. The appellant said that he would not be safe if . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh QBD 13-Dec-1983
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation
An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he . .
Cited – Regina (Konan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2004
The claimants alleged that their immigration detention had been unlawful.
Held: Collins J said: ‘Since the detention at least since 24 June 2002 was contrary to the defendant’s own policy as published in Chapter 38, it was unlawful. In so . .
At CA – B v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 6-May-2015
The appellant was detained under immigration rules. He refused to provide details of his nationality and now complained of his continuing detention in the light of a finding that he was unlikely to be returnable to Algeria, that being what was . .
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 – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
See Also – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jan-2013
B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to . .
See Also – B v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 21-Jul-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment of four months imposed for his refusal to reveal his true identity. He was in custody suspected of terrorist activities. The identity he had given had been shown to be false, and the Algerian . .
Cited – I, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 28-Jun-2002
The appellant obtained asylum but was convicted of offences after entering, and ordered to be deported. Whilst serving his sentence the deportation order was served, but he was not released on licence at the time he would normally have been . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Stellato v The Ministry of Justice CA 14-Dec-2010
The claimant having been released on licence from a prison sentence refused to comply with the conditions of his licence on the ground that he was entitled to be released unconditionally. He was returned to prison. The Divisional Court dismissed his . .
Cited – Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department HL 10-Feb-1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal . .
Cited – In re Wasfi Suleman Mahmod Admn 17-Jan-1994
Laws J considered the Hardial Singh principles, adding: ‘While, of course, Parliament is entitled to confer powers of administrative detention without trial, the courts will see to it that where such a power is conferred the statute that confers it . .
Cited – Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre PC 27-Mar-1996
(Hong Kong) Migrants from Vietnam of Chinese ethnic origin had landed in Hong Kong by boat, and been refused refugee status. They were detained for several years under section 13D of the Immigration Ordinance ‘pending . . removal from Hong Kong’. . .
Cited – AR, Regina (on The Application of) (Pakistan) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jul-2016
The court was asked ‘If bail is granted by the First Tier Tribunal on conditions, how long do these conditions last and does the Secretary of State or her immigration officers have authority to vary or relax those conditions?’
Held: Paragraph . .
Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
Cited – Khadir, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Jun-2005
The applicant who had entered England hidden in a lorry, claimed asylum, and had his claim rejected. It was said that as an Iraqi Kurd, he would be safe in the Kurdish area of Iraq. No safe means had been found of ensuring his return over some four . .
Cited – Stellato v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1-Dec-2006
In 1998, the prisoner had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He had been released on licence after serving two thirds of that sentence, but then recalled on three occasions. He now sought unconditional release after serving three quarters of . .
Cited – Othman, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and Others Admn 9-Aug-2012
The court gave its reasons for refusing the claimant’s applications for habeas corpus and permission to seek judicial review of his detention. He was detained pending deportation to Jordan. He resisted saying that if retried in Jordan, the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.604212

Regina v Hammond: 1986

Boreham J said: ‘There is clear authority for a proposition, which is contrary to the decision of the learned judge in this case, that where a defendant in the course of interview, whether by oral reply or by statement in writing, makes excuses for his conduct or assertions in his own favour in a mixed statement, those excuses or assertions form part of the evidence in the case. As is pointed out in Duncan, it may be evidence that in the circumstances will not carry a great deal of weight, but at least it is evidence of that which is asserted. The learned judge in this case, as I have indicated, decided to the contrary. We have no doubt that had the decision in Duncan been brought to the judge’s attention his ruling would have been different.’

Judges:

Boreham J

Citations:

(1986) Cr App R 65

Cited by:

Cited – Silverman, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-1987
The defendant appealed against his conviction for offences of for dishonesty. He was said ti have grossly overcharged two spinster sisters for work on their home. He said that the judge had failed properly to put his defence before the jury.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.544348

Regina v Hendon Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 1993

The court considered an application for judicial review by the DPP of a decision to acquit the defendant because the prosecutor had failed to appear for trial.
Held: Dismissing the information, and acquitting the accused had been an unreasonable decision which no reasonable bench could have come to. The acquittal was a nullity and mandamus would issue requiring the justices to hear the informations according to law.
Mann LJ said: ‘However, the duty of the court is to hear informations which are properly before it. The prosecution has a right to be heard and there is a public interest that, save in exceptional circumstances, it should be heard’ and ‘We have already stated that in our judgment the respondent justices’ decision to dismiss the information was outwith their statutory power. It was thus a nullity and could not have sustained a plea of autrefois because there had not been a lawful acquittal.’

Judges:

Mann LJ

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 411

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service, Regina (on the Application of) v Portsmouth Crown Court Admn 1-May-2003
The CPS appealed against dismissal of their case by the Crown Court after no representative had appeared at court to present the case. Counsel had two cases, and had asked this to be held pending completion of the other which then overran. Counsel . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470924

Case XLII 7 H 4, 36 13 H 4, 8 3 H 7, Ch 1 Br Appeal, 12 Dyer, 296 Stamf 107 Kely 92, 94 Carth 18 4 Co 49 A Cont Br Appeal, 55: 1220

In case of a principal and accessary in murder, the principal is attainted upon an indictment at the suit of the King, and outlawed thereupon ; this attainder will not serve in an appeal to arraign the accessary ; the principal ought to be attainted upon an appeal before the accessary shall be arraigned upon an appeal. An attainder, at the King’s suit, at Common Law did not bar an appeal, if it was brought before the attainder; but if brought after the attainder it was otherwise : but now by the stat. H. 7, ch. 1, neither an attainder nor acquittal at the suit of the King bars an appeal for murder, if clergy be not had. Other felonies remain at the Common Law until the appeal is determined.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 610, (1220-1623) Jenk 75, (1220) 145 ER 53 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461522

Case LXXXVIII 21 E 4, 1 Attaint, Challenge, Judgment: 1220

In an attaint, it is a principal challenge that one of the petty jury is a tenant to one of the grand jury : for if a petty jury be convicted in the attaint, it will be a great prejudice to the seigniory ; for his houses shall be pulled down, and his meadows plowed. The statute of 23 H 8, cap. 3, for attaint, does not takae away the attaint at common law ; but ordains that no attaint shall be brought except in the King’s Bench or Common Pleas at Westminster, and not eIsewhere. In other actions, a challenge that the juror is lord to the party, is only a challenge to the favour.
Juratores debent esse minus suspecti (Jurors should be free of suspicion).

Citations:

[1220] EngR 307, (1220-1623) Jenk 141, (1220) 145 ER 98 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461219

Case XVI 12 Ass Pl 21 2 E 3, Ch 8: 1220

A commission of oyer and terminer ought not to issue but for enormous crimes. A supersedeas issues to these commissioners to surcease their proceediirigs, they surcease ; a procedendo comes to them afterwards without a new commission ; these commissioners may well proceed upon it. The King may discharge or annul this commission ; he cannot delay, discharge, or stay the proceedings of justice between the subjects by any mandate under the great or privy seal, the commission or patent of the justices being in force : but he may in his own case, so understand this case. By all the justices. Rex quod est injustum facere non potest.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 94, (1220-1623) Jenk 9, (1220) 145 ER 7 (E)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461006

Case LI. 10 E 4, 15 Stamf 95 Indictment, Court: 1220

By indictment at a great court held with a leet at a certain place, day and year, it was found that A. had committed such a felony ; this presentment is void ; for it does not appear whether the said presentment was at the leet or at the court-baron ; if at the court-baron, it is void. So such presentment at the County-Court with the sherrif’s turn ; is also void for the same reason.
By the judges in the Exchequer-chamber

Citations:

[1220] EngR 51, (1220-1623) Jenk 124, (1220) 145 ER 87 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460963