Tag: Criminal Practice

Regina v Samuel: CA 1988

The defendant had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. He asked for a solicitor, but one was refused under section 58 of the 1984 Act. He appealed against his conviction saying that he should have been allowed access to a solicitor.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He could not be refused access to a solicitor after charge where, as here, the initial charges had been of burglary, and the inspector refusing access had to justify the refusal of access to any particular solicitor. The right of a suspect to consult and instruct a lawyer ‘as one of the most important and fundamental rights of a citizen’.

Judges:

Hodgson J

Citations:

[1988] QB 615, [1988] 2 WLR 920, (1987) Cr App R 232

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 58(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445392

Regina v Hall: 1891

On taking an office of trust concerning the public, a person makes himself answerable to the Crown irrespective of who they had been appointed by, and in what way the appointment arose. It is an ‘old principle that where an Act of Parliament creates an offence and prescribes no remedy for it, the offence is indictable at common law.’ Where an offence was not expressly made subject to summary jurisdiction, it could only be tried by a jury.

Citations:

[1891] 1 QB 747

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bowden (T) CACD 24-Feb-1995
The defendant, a maintenance manager, was accused of misconduct in public office. He had caused works to be carried out by other employees of the local authority on premises occupied by a friend when such works were not required under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.414600

Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R: 1988

R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined.
Held: R’s request for a writ of mandamus succeeded. Once the parties accepted that the admissibility of the alleged statement was contested, he was entitled to have its admissibility tested as a preliminary issue. When magistrates conducting a summary trial are faced with an objection to the admissibility of evidence under ss 76 and/or 78 of PACE, they are obliged to determine the objections forthwith by holding a trial within a trial (voir dire).
Questions put to an investigating officer to test the admissibility of the evidence were not on their own sufficient to give rise to the need for a voir dire.

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1988] QB 1, [1987] 2 All ER 668, (1987) 86 Cr App R 1, [1987] Crim LR 572, [1987] 3 WLR 224

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.416720

John Wilkes v The King: PC 16 Jan 1769

An information for an offence, is a surmise or suggestion upon record, on behalf of the King, to a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, and is to all intents and purposes the King’s suit; and may be filed by tbe Solicitor General, during a vacancy of the office of Attorney General. In such a case, it is not necessary in point of law, to aver upon the record, that the Attorney General’s office was vacant.

Citations:

[1769] EngR 25, (1769) 4 Bro PC 360, (1769) 2 ER 244

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See also – Wilkes v Wood CCP 6-Dec-1763
Entry by Force was Unconstitutional
The plaintiff challenged a warrant of commitment to the Tower of London addressed to John Wilkes by name. The plaintiff sought damages after his property was entered by force on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Held: The case was decided on a . .

Cited by:

See Also – Rex v John Wilkes, Esq 7-Feb-1770
The law must be applied even if the heavens fell
An information for a misdemeanor may be amended the day before trial by a single Judge at chambers on hearing both sides and without the consent of the defendant.
On setting aside John Wilkes’ outlawry for publishing The North Briton, Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.374536

Regina v Goldstone: CACD 2005

The Court rejected a submission that the questions as to disclosure raised before it fell outside the ambit of a preparatory hearing.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2461

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.252540

Callis v Gunn: CCA 1964

Evidence obtained by false representations, threats and bribes by the police may be excluded at the discretion of the judge. For voluntariness to be satisfactorily proved, proof must be provided to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Lord Parker of Waddington LCJ said: ‘(It is) a fundamental principle of law that no answer to a question and no statement is admissible unless it is shown by the prosecution not to have been obtained in an oppressive manner and to have been voluntary in the sense that it has not been obtained by threats or inducements.’ and ‘[A]s is well known, in every criminal case a judge has a discretion to disallow evidence, even if in law relevant and therefore admissible, if admissibility would operate unfairly against a defendant. I would add that in considering whether admissibility would operate unfairly against a defendant one would certainly consider whether it had been obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused person. That is the general principle.’

Judges:

Lord Parker of Waddington LCJ

Citations:

[1964] 1 QB 495, (1963) 48 Cr App R 36, [1963] 3 WLR 931

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.250468

Regina v Porritt: CCA 1961

Ashworth J said: ‘As has already been said, the issue of manslaughter was not raised at the trial, but there is ample authority for the view that notwithstanding the fact that a particular issue is not raised by the defence, it is incumbent upon the judge trying the case, if the evidence justifies it, to leave that issue to the jury.’

Judges:

Ashworth J

Citations:

[1961] 1 WLR 1372, [1961] 3 All ER 463, (1961) 45 Cr App Rep 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Bullard v The Queen PC 1957
The question was whether there was evidence on which the jury could have found a verdict of manslaughter on grounds of provocation rather than the verdict of murder which had been returned.
Held: There is naturally a tendency for an appellate . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.243338

Scott v The Queen: PC 1989

The Board was asked whether sworn depositions of two deceased witnesses should have been admitted.
Held: A warning should be given when admitting identification involving communications between spouses. A conviction based on uncorroborated evidence should be sustained in absence of a warning of the danger of a mistaken identification only in most exceptional circumstances.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘if convictions are to be allowed upon uncorroborated identification evidence there must be a strict insistence upon a judge giving a clear warning of the danger of a mistaken identification which the jury must consider before arriving at their verdict and that it would only be in the most exceptional circumstances that a conviction based on uncorrroborated identification evidence should be sustained in the absence of such a warning.’
and ‘The mere fact that the deponent will not be available for cross-examination is obviously an insufficient ground for excluding the deposition for that is a feature common to the admission of all depositions which must have been contemplated and accepted by the legislature when it gave statutory sanction to their admission in evidence. . . It will of course be necessary in every case to warn the jury that they have not had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the deponent tested in cross-examination and to take that into consideration when considering how far they can safely rely on the evidence in the deposition. No doubt in many cases it will be appropriate for a judge to develop this warning by pointing out particular features of the evidence in the deposition which conflict with other evidence and which could have been explored in cross-examination: but no rules can usefully be laid down to control the detail to which a judge should descend in the individual case’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1989] AC 1242, [1989] 2 All ER 305, (1989) 89 Cr App R 153, [1989] 2 WLR 924

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.242118

Regina v Burns: CACD 1 Mar 2006

The defendant complained that the court had wrongfully admitted evidence of a previous conviction on the basis only that he shared the name and date of birth of the person convicted. The conviction was used as evidence of his propensity to be untruthful.
Held: What was evidence in such circumstances was not a matter of law but of fact. Names which are very uncommon when fully matched to a birth date will be more readily relied upon than very common names with a partial date match. In this case, the match on the full name and date of birth together were capable of establishing the defendant as the person convicted. The judge should then have directed the jury to consider whether this was established conclusively, but his failure did not affect the outcome in this case.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Stanley Burton J, Hedley J

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2006

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .
Cited – Regina v Derwentside Justices, Ex parte Heaviside 1996
Establishing whether previous convictions listed were those of the defendant. . .
Cited – Olakunori v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Jul-1998
Establishing identity of defendant with persons listed on previous convictions list. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240168

Williams v Somerfield: 1972

The court emphasised that a search warrant is a potentially serious invasion of the liberty of the subject, and a gross invasion of privacy. Lord Widgery also drew the distinction between authorising the obtaining of material as permitted by statute, and ‘a fishing expedition in the hope of finding some material upon which the charge can be hung’.

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1972] 2 QB 512

Statutes:

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.230383

Moevao v Department of Labour: 1980

(New Zealand) Richardson J said: ‘The justification for staying a prosecution is that the court is obliged to take that extreme step in order to protect its own processes from abuse. It does so in order to prevent the criminal processes from being used for purposes alien to the administration of criminal justice under law. It may intervene in this way if it concludes from the conduct of the prosecutor in relation to the prosecution that the court processes are being employed for ulterior purposes or in such a way (for example, through multiple or successive proceedings) as to cause improper vexation and oppression. The yardstick is not simply fairness to the particular accused. It is not whether the initiation and continuation of the particular process seems in the uncertain circumstances to be unfair to him. That may be an important consideration. But the focus is on the misuse of the court process by those responsible for the law enforcement. It is whether the continuation of the prosecution is inconsistent with the recognised purposes of the administration of criminal justice and so constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Richardson J

Citations:

[1980] 1 NZLR 464

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Leeds Magistrates Court ex parte Serif Systems Limited and Hamilton Admn 9-Oct-1997
The applicant sought that summonses be set aside as an abuse of process, being begun to embarrass him as he set out to become an MP. Thirty one private summonses had been issued.
Held: Of the summonses to be continued it could not be said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225278

In re Sagger (Confiscation order: Delay): CA 24 Feb 2005

The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking and made subject to a confiscation order. Several years later the Commissioners sought a further confiscation order. He appealed the order, saying that it had infringed his right of a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Held: Where the state reserved to itself a continuing right to make a confiscation order, the reasonable time requirement applied throughout that period. The statute made it clear that the fixing of an amount left open without limitation of time, the possibility of a reassessment of the amount payable. The statute itself required the court to satisfy itself that there had been no undue delay. The reasonable time rights were engaged. A section 16 certificate allowing the matters to be re-opened would be issued so that the court could look again at all issues including whether the reasonable time requirement had in fact been infringed by the delay.

Judges:

Mummery, Rix, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.223985

Regina v B: CACD 2003

The court allowed an appeal against conviction on charges of sex abuse where the underlying offences had taken place many years before. ‘In this case it has to be recognised that because of the delay that occurred, in our judgment the appellant was put in an impossible position to defend himself. He was not . . able to conduct any proper cross-examination of the complainant. There was no material he could put to the complainant to establish that she had said that something had happened on one occasion which could be established to be incorrect. There was no material in the form of notes . . which showed that she had changed her account. All that the appellant could do was to say that he had not committed the acts alleged against him. [Counsel] says that to say to a jury, when faced with allegations of the sort that were made here, ‘I have not done it’ is virtually no defence at all.”

Judges:

Woolf LCJ

Citations:

[2003] 2 Cr App R 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dutton CACD 1994
The case involved an allegation of sex abuse committed against a young boy who then made no complaint until he was 29, twenty years after the first offence and 14 years after the last offence alleged against the defendant. There was no apparent . .

Cited by:

Distinguished – Woodcock v The Government of New Zealand QBD 14-Nov-2003
The applicant, a catholic priest, challenged his extradition for alleged offences of sexual abuse which had taken place in the 1980s, saying it would be an abuse now to prosecute him after such a delay.
Held: The case of R v B was of a . .
Cited – Regina v Smolenski CACD 4-May-2004
The defendant complained that the long delay in his prosecution for alleged sexual assaults was an abuse.
Held: Complaints about delays should normally be dealt with by the court of trial having heard the evidence. It was in the nature of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187955

Regina v Berriman: 1854

Citations:

(1854) 6 Cox 388

Cited by:

Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184190

McFadyen v Annan: 1992

The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair.
Held: The question should be whether the delay would so prejudice the prospects of a fair trial to the extent that any such trial would be oppressive. A former, two stage, test was no longer to be followed. Delay before as well as after proceedings were begun could be looked at. In this case there was no such risk of prejudice from any delay.

Citations:

[1992] JC 53, [1992] CLY 5466, 1992 SLT 163

Citing:

Applied – Stuurman v HM Advocate 1980
The court was asked whether a fair trial could take place at all in the light of the pre-trial publicity.
Held: The court noted that the palliative of judicial directions can never be absolutely effective, but the judge had done what he could. . .
Overruled – Tudhope v McCarthy 1985
. .
Overruled – McGeown v HM Advocate 1989
. .
Overruled – Connachan v Douglas 1990
. .
Overruled – HM Advocate v Mechan 1991
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Dyer v Watson and Burrows PC 29-Jan-2002
Parties challenged the compliance of proceedings with the convention where there had been considerable delay.
Held: The reasonable detention provision (article 5(3)) and the reasonable time requirement (article 6(1)) conferred free-standing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182771

Regina v Jones (Paull Garfield): CACD 8 Oct 2002

The Court of Appeal had ordered the defendant to be re-tried within two months. An initial application for directions was adjourned without the defendant being re-arraigned, and then was adjourned again to a date outside the two month limit. Defence solicitors, knowing the difficulty declined to express a view either way.
Held: The arraignment could take place exceptionally outside the two month limit. The duty under the act for the prosecution to act with ‘all due expedition’ was a more restricted requirement than the one to act with ‘due diligence’, and there was also a duty on the defence to ensure that effect was given to the order of the Court.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Wright, Henriques JJ

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-2002, Gazette 31-Oct-2002

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 8(1B)

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.177489

Regina v Gough (Stephen): CACD 8 Nov 2001

Where a defendant absconded and failed to give evidence, it was not right for the judge to direct the jury that his failure to give evidence because of his absconding allowed the drawing of adverse inferences. Before such an inference could be drawn, the defendant had to have the consequences of his failure to give evidence explained to him, and that would not have been done in the case of an absconder. That warning was mandatory.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Poole and Mr Justice David Steel

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.166837

Regina v Pearce: CACD 2002

An unmarried partner in a long-term relationship with the accused was a compellable witness against him even though, had they been married, she would not have been. The statutory provisions applied to husband and wife and no one else.

Citations:

[2002] 1 CAR 39

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence 1984

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

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.564473

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey and Others: QBD 28 Oct 1993

Parole provisions are to apply to life prisoners who had been transferred transferred to a mental hospital.

Citations:

Times 28-Oct-1993

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1991 34 sch12 9(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte H and Others, Regina v Same ex parte Hickey CA 29-Jul-1994
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87931

Smith v HM Advocate: HCJ 1952

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Thomson

Citations:

1952 JC 66

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440845

Downie v HM Advocate: HCJ 1952

Judges:

Lord Justice General Cooper

Citations:

1952 JC 37

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440844

Regina v Ghulam: CACD 21 Oct 2009

If a defendant wished the court to consider whether he was fit to plead, he must provide reports from two medical experts to comply with the statute. In this case, the court had been provided with only one, and was therefore unable to consider the plea.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mrs Justice Sharpe

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2009

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28), Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.377226

Caswell v Morgan: 30 Apr 1859

A common informer may lay an information against a pawnbroker, for an offence under the Pawnbrokers Act 39 and 40 G 3 c 99; and is entitled under sect 26 of the Act to a moiety of the penalty imposed upon the offender.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 524, (1859) 1 El and El 809, (1859) 120 ER 1114

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.287876

In Re O (Restraint Order: Disclosure of Assets): 1991

A restraint order had been made against O in an action under the 1988 Act. He sought a variation. On the application of the prosecutor he was ordered to file an affidavit of means. He sought to appeal, but the prosecutor said no appeal lay.
Held: An appeal was possible. It succeeded only to the extent that the court ordered that it should not be available in evidence against the defendant in criminal proceedings against O or his wife. Donaldson J drew a distinction between a judgment ‘in a criminal cause or matter’ and a judgment ‘collateral to a criminal cause or matter’.’

Judges:

Donaldson J

Citations:

[1991] 2 QB 520

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(1)

Citing:

Cited – Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1985
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal . .

Cited by:

Cited – Knowles and others v Superintendent of HM Prison Fox Hill and others PC 23-Mar-2005
(Bahamas) The claimants resisted requests for their extradition to the US on drugs charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.276504

Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service: 2004

Citations:

[2004] 4 All ER 391

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – King v The Serious Fraud Office CACD 18-Mar-2008
Restraint and Disclosure orders had been made on without notice applications at the request of South Africa. The applicant appealed a refusal of their discharge.
Held: Such orders did not apply to the applicant’s assets in Scotland. The orders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.273115

Regina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci: HL 16 Jun 1995

The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their credibility. The appeals were upheld, and the crown in turn appealed.
Held: Both exculpatory and inculpatory parts of a defence statement were to be left to the jury as truth of their content. A judge could comment if a defendant failed to allow his account to be tested by cross examination, but had a discretion not to do so if common sense required otherwise. Here the convictions had been correctly quashed. A defendant is entitled to a good character direction on first conviction though the Judge may make amendments to the standard directions for propensity and credibility though other admissions. The good character of an accused is relevant not only to credibility but also to the likelihood that he would commit the offence in question.
The purpose of a good character direction was considered by Lord Steyn: ‘it has long been recognised that the good character of a defendant is logically relevant to his credibility and to the likelihood that he would commit the offence in question. That seems obvious. The question might nevertheless be posed: why should a judge be obliged to give directions on good character? The answer is that in modern practice a judge almost invariably reminds the jury of the principal points of the prosecution case. At the same time he must put the defence case before the jury in a fair and balanced way. Fairness requires that the judge should direct the jury about good character because it is evidence of probative significance. Leaving it entirely to the discretion of trial judges to decide whether to give directions on good character led to inconsistency and to repeated appeals. Hence there has been a shift from discretion to rules of practice and Vye was the culmination of this development . .’
Lord Steyn asked ‘What is good character?’ He recognised that a defendant may have no previous convictions but it may emerge during the course of the trial, for example through cross-examination on behalf of a co-defendant, that the defendant has in fact been dishonest for many years. How should the judge deal with such a case? Lord Steyn continued: ‘A good starting point is that a judge should never be compelled to give meaningless or absurd directions. And cases occur from time to time where a defendant, who has no previous convictions, is shown beyond doubt to have been guilty of serious criminal behaviour similar to the offence charged in the indictment. A sensible criminal justice system should not compel a judge to go through the charade of giving directions in according with the Vye in a case where the defendant’s claim to good character is spurious. I would further hold that a trial judge has a residual discretion to decline to give any character directions in the case of a defendant without previous convictions if the judge considers it an insult to common sense to give directions in accordance with Vye . . That brings me to the nature of the discretion. Discretions range from the open-textured discretionary powers to narrowly circumscribed discretionary powers. The residual discretion of a trial judge to dispense with character directions in respect of a defendant of good character is of the more limited variety. Prima facie directions must be given and the judge will often be able to place a fair and balanced picture before the jury by giving directions in accordance with Vye . . and then adding words of qualification concerning other proved or possible criminal conduct of the defendant which emerged during the trial. On the other hand, if it would make no sense to give character directions in accordance with Vye, the judge may in his discretion dispense with them’

Judges:

Lord Steyn

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Independent 16-Jun-1995, Times 16-Jun-1995, [1996] AC 41, [1995] 3 All ER 149, [1995] 2 Cr App R 478

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Durbin CACD 1995
The appellant had been convicted of the importation of 875 kilos of cannabis. He had spent convictions but more significantly he admitted in interview being engaged in smuggling other contraband goods. Furthermore, he admitted telling lies to the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Ian Cauldero and Nigill Francois v The State PC 28-Sep-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They complained at to the judge’s direction as to a statement and as to intent, where they had said that the gun had been wrestled . .
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 – 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 – Mantoor Ramdhanie and others v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction, saying he had not been properly able to pur forward his evidence of good character. The judge had prevented the defence putting questions to show a . .
Cited – Payton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .
Cited – Onasanya v London Borough of Newham Admn 14-Jul-2006
The defendant had tried to sell his car by placing a notice in a rear window saying it was for sale, and leaving it on the street.
Held: The authority said that there was more than one purpose in the vehicle being left on the street, and that . .
Cited – Lord-Castle v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 23-Jan-2009
The defendant appealed by case stated from his conviction for using a motor vehicle fitted with a siren. When stopped various items suggesting that driver might be providing an ambulance service were found. The siren was not used.
Held: The . .
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 – Shirley, Regina v CACD 8-Nov-2013
The defendant had been convicted of several very serious sexual and physical assaults and rapes. He appealed against his conviction, saying that the judge had not fairly represented his defence to the jury. He said that the complainant had been . .
Cited – Regina v Gray CACD 30-Apr-2004
The court examined the authorities as to good chracter directions where a defendant had previous convictions. Rix LJ said: ‘In our judgment the authorities discussed above entitled us to state the following principles as applicable in this context: . .
Cited – GAI v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2012
The defendant’s appeal based on the absence of a good character direction had succeeded. The court now gave its reasons.
Held: After reviewing the authorities, the appeal succeeded: ‘the learned judge was wrong to find that the fact that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86077

Regina v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex Parte Smith: HL 15 Jul 1992

The applicant having been cautioned for an offence under the Companies Act 1985, he objected to being required to answer questions put to him in connection with the matter by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office under the 1987 Act.
Held: The duty under the Act to answer SFO questions, continues even after the defendant is charged. The House identified six forms of immunity including: ‘a general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies’ for which there were several motives.
Lord Mustill said: ‘That there is strong presumption against interpreting the statute as taking away the right of silence, at least in some of its forms, cannot in my view be doubted. Recently, Lord Griffiths (delivering the opinion in the Privy Council in Lam Chi-ming v The Queen [1991] 2 AC 212, 222) described the privilege against self-incrimination as ‘deep rooted in English law,’ and I would not wish to minimise its importance in any way. Nevertheless it is clear that statutory interference with the right is almost as old as the right itself. Since the 16th century legislation has established an inquisitorial form of investigation into the dealings and assets of bankrupts which is calculated to yield potentially incriminating material, and in more recent times there have been many other examples, in widely separated fields, which are probably more numerous than is generally appreciated.
These statutes differ widely as to their aims and methods. In the first place, the ways in which the overriding of the immunity is conveyed are not the same. Sometimes it is made explicit. More commonly, it is left to be inferred from general language which contains no qualification in favour of the immunity. Secondly, there are variations in the effect on the admissibility of information obtained as a result of the investigation. The statute occasionally provides in so many terms that the information may be used in evidence; sometimes that it may not be used for certain purposes, inferentially permitting its use for others; or it may be expressly prescribed that the evidence is not to be admitted; or again, the statute may be silent.’
and ‘The first is a simple reflection of the common view that one person should so far as possible be entitled to tell another person to mind his own business . . Secondly, there is a long history of reaction against abuses of judicial interrogation. . Next there is the instinct that it is contrary to fair play to put the accused in a position where he is exposed to punishment whatever he does. If he answers, he may condemn himself out of his own mouth; if he refuses he may be punished for his refusal. . Finally there is the desire to minimise the risk that an accused will be convicted on the strength of an untrue extra-judicial confession, to which the law gives effect by refusing to admit confessions in evidence except upon proof that they are ‘voluntary.”
and ‘Few would dispute that some curtailment of the liberty is indispensable to the stability of society; and indeed in the United Kingdom today our lives are permeated by enforceable duties to provide information on demand . .’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 3 All ER 456, [1992] 3 WLR 66, [1993] AC 1, [1992] BCLC 879

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Ex Parte Smith QBD 11-Mar-1992
The Serious Fraud Office may interview a defendant after he has been charged, but must give the caution and act accordingly and with caution. . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Regina v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Ex Parte Smith QBD 11-Mar-1992
The Serious Fraud Office may interview a defendant after he has been charged, but must give the caution and act accordingly and with caution. . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Cited – Regina v S and A CACD 9-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2000 Act for failing to disclose the key used to encrypt a computer file. He was subject to a control order as a suspected terrorist. As the police raided his house, they found the key had been . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.86551

Coles v Camborne Justices: QBD 27 Jul 1998

Once the charges had been withdrawn by the prosecutor, the former defendant was no longer an accused, and the magistrates had no power to re-open the case to alter an order for costs they had made.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-1998

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 142(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Thames Magistrates’ Court ex parte Genegis Ramadan Admn 5-Oct-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79272

Giebler v Manning: 1906

The court was asked whether a private person could prosecute a butcher for exposing rotten meat for sale.
Held: Provided the purpose of the offence was to protect the public, any person could bring a prosecution. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Can a private person institute proceedings under section 47, sub-s.2? Apart from express provisions limiting the right, I should have thought the point was too clear for argument . . Having regard to the object of the statute, the protection of the public against the offering of diseased meat for sale, I think that if it had been intended to limit the right to take proceedings for the recovery of penalties to a limited class of persons, such as medical officers and sanitary inspectors, words would have been introduced into the section taking away from private persons the right to lay informations under the section.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1906] 1 KB 709

Statutes:

Public Health (London) Act 1891 47(2)

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267546

Lake v Smith: 1911

The defendant was prosecuted under the 1814 Act for offences of remong shingle from the beach at Sidmouth. He questioned the authority of the prosecutor who was not specificlly authorised under regulations to lay the complaint.
Held: The prosecution was proper.
Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘I think that we must consider that the statute was passed for the protection of the realm, and in those circumstances it seems to me that under s.21 the information could be laid by a person in the position of surveyor to the district counsel.’

Judges:

Lord Alverstone CJ

Citations:

[1911] 76 JP 71

Statutes:

Harbours Act 1814 14 21

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267547

Regina v Hicks: 1855

The defendant appealed against his conviction in a private prosecution under the 1852 Act which controlled the right to set up and operate market stalls. The Act was a local Act. The court considered when magistrates should allow a private prosecution.
Held: Only the operator of the market could bring a prosecution. A summons may be issued where the offence is not an individual grievance, but is rather a matter of public policy and utility, and concerns public morals. In such a case anyone has the general power to prosecute, unless the statute gauging the offence contains some restriction or regulation limiting the right to some particular person or party.
Lord Campbell CJ said: ‘The clause on which this conviction proceeds appears to have been framed solely and exclusively for the protection and benefit of the Torquay market company . . This enactment is not for the benefit of the inhabitants of Torquay, nor of licensed hawkers, but merely for the benefit of the company, that they may be reimbursed the expenses they have incurred from purchasing the new market-place and erecting sheds and stalls, stations and other conveniences therein . . the penalty under section 31 cannot be recovered, except upon an information laid with the authority of the company.’

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ

Citations:

[1855] 19 JP 515

Statutes:

Torquay Market Act 1852

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267548

Back v Homes: 1887

The court was asked whether a Highway Act applied to London.
Held: It did. Mr A L Smith asked: ‘the second question is whether the initiative can be taken by the police in the prosecution under section 72 of the act. Why not? Anybody may prosecute if an offence has been committed.’ Wills J said: ‘ the Highway Act seems to apply generally, and a prosecution for this offence under section 72 of the Highway Act was competent; and if so, anybody could prosecute.’

Judges:

Wills J

Citations:

[1887] 51 JP 693

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267545

Coles v Coulton: 1860

The defendant appealed his conviction under the Act, a private one. It was said that as an innkeeper, he had knowingly suffered four common prostitutes to assemble at and continue in his house and premises contrary to that Act. The Clerk of the Paving Commissioners brought the prosecution.
Held: The prosecutor had standing to issue the summons. Lord Cockburn CJ said: ‘The offence is not a matter of individual grievance as to which provision is made merely for the protection of individual rights, but the matter is one of public policy and utility with a view to the preservation of public morals. The general act gives authority to any one to prosecute for penalties who chooses to do so . . There is a plain distinction between the case of an offence which must be prosecuted for the public protection and where the enactment is one for the protection of individuals.’

Judges:

Lord Cockburn CJ

Citations:

[1860] 24 JP 596

Statutes:

King’s Lynn Waterworks and Borough Improvement Act 1859

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267544

Regina v Bonython: 1984

(South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert.
Held: It is for the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose there are two questions for the judge to decide: ‘The first is whether the subject matter of the opinion falls within the class of subjects upon which expert testimony is permissible. This . . may be divided into two parts: (a) whether the subject matter of the opinion is such that a person without instruction or experience in the area of knowledge or human experience would be able to form a sound judgment on the matter without the assistance of witnesses possessing special knowledge or experience in the area, and (b) whether the subject matter of the opinion forms part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience, a special acquaintance with which by the witness would render his opinion of assistance to the court. The second question is whether the witness has acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge of the subject to render his opinion of value in resolving the issues before the court.
An investigation of the methods used by the witness in arriving at his opinion may be pertinent, in certain circumstances, to the answers to both the above questions . . Where the witness possesses the relevant formal qualifications to express an opinion on the subject, an investigation on the voir dire of his methods will rarely be permissible on the issue of his qualifications. There may be greater scope for such examination where the alleged qualifications depended upon experience or informal studies… Generally speaking, once the qualifications are established, the methodology will be relevant to the weight of the evidence and not to the competence of the witness to express an opinion…’

Citations:

[1984] 38 SASR 45

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Approved – Doughty v Ely Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 7-Mar-2008
The claimant sought judicial review. He practised giving evidence as to the operation of traffic speed cameras. The defendant magistrates had declined to accept his evidence saying that he was not an expert.
Held: ‘Whether someone is competent . .
Cited – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Evidence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.267002

SC v United Kingdon: ECHR 2004

SC when aged 11 was charged with attempted robbery. He had previous convictions, and was committed to the crown court for trial. He applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process on account of limited intellectual capacity, and inability effectively to take part in a trial. It was not said that he was unfit to plead, but that a crown court trial would be a breach of his Article 6 Convention rights. He was tried and convicted; his appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) failed.
Held: SC’s Article 6 rights had been breached if he had been unable effectively to participate in his trial. The Court described ‘effective participation’ in a trial: ‘However, ‘effective participation’ in this context presupposes that the accused has a broad understanding of the nature of the trial process and of what is at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed. It means that he or she, if necessary with the assistance of, for example, an interpreter, lawyer, social worker or friend, should be able to understand the general thrust of what is said in court. The defendant should be able to follow what is said by the prosecution witness and, if represented, to explain to his own lawyers his version of events, point out any statements with which he disagrees and make them aware of any facts which should be put forward in his defence.’

Citations:

[2004] 40 EHRR 10

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P Admn 27-Apr-2007
The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251548

Regina v L,G,Q and M: 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1579

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.248457

Regina v Smolinski: CACD 2004

When a defendant argues for an abuse of process from delay, the court should make its ruling only after the close of the prosecution case, when the effect of the delay may be properly understood. A stay should be exceptional.

Citations:

[2004] 2 Cr App R 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ali, Altaf v Crown Prosecution Service, West Midlands CACD 22-Mar-2007
The defendant was first arrested in 1997, but only re-arrested in 2004. He complained that the delay affected his right to a fair trial within a proper time. The judge accepted this but the trial proceeded, the judge denying a claim of abuse of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.250549

Regina v Sharp (Note): 1960

If a defendant refuses to take part in his trial, as if he absconds, in order to prevent trial he may not rely on silence or absence to avoid or postpone trial.

Citations:

[1960] 1 QB 357

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.242116

Maan Petitioner: 2001

The accused sought to defend a charge on indictment of assault on a special defence of self-defence and gave notice of an intention to attack the character of the complainer and the other two Crown witnesses. He sought the previous convictions of the complainer and these witnesses, as well as those relating to a third witness who had been cited for the defence.
Held: The court declined to follow Ashrif and ordered production of the previous convictions of all four witnesses: ‘In my opinion, provided the witnesses’ previous convictions are relevant to a legitimate attack on character or to their credibility, the material sought would plainly be relevant to his defence. It is therefore material which the petitioner is prima facie entitled to have disclosed to him. Moreover, in my view he is prima facie entitled to have it disclosed to him in advance of the trial. His right is to have disclosed to him material necessary for the proper preparation as well as the proper presentation of his defence. Possession of information about the witnesses’ relevant criminal records would enable the petitioner’s counsel or solicitor to make proper preparation for the cross-examination of the witnesses in question. Lack of that information in advance would not wholly preclude the contemplated lines of cross-examination, but would make embarking on them a much more uncertain course. Matters of credibility and character depend very much on the impressions made on the jury, and cross-examination might well be less effective if embarked upon without knowledge of the detail of the witnesses’ records. An impression unfairly unfavourable to the petitioner might be made on the jury if cross-examination were embarked upon on his behalf, appeared to be unsuccessful, then was followed by re-examination which showed that the cross-examiner had been ill-informed.’

Judges:

Lord Macfadyen

Citations:

2001 SCCR 172

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Not Followed – HM Advocate v Ashrif 1988
The accused had sought to recover the previous convictions of the complainant not from the prosecution, but from the Scottish Criminal Record Office.
Held: The appeal court came down firmly against permitting defence agents to recover the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225526

Rex v Leckey: CCA 1943

A conviction was set aside where the judge had invited the jury to take account of the defendant’s failure to give evidence.

Citations:

(1943) 29 Cr App R 128, [1944] K B 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192241

Regina v Hearne and Coleman: CACD 4 May 2000

D appealed a conviction after direction under s34.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘Section 34 is designed, in part at any rate and perhaps principally, to deal with the sort of situation which not infrequently arises where a defence is advanced which has never been previously indicated even though there was sufficient opportunity to do so, as from the provisions we have read make clear would be the case where there has been an interview under caution. It is to allow the jury, in a proper case and subject to safeguards, to draw an inference from the fact that the defence advanced at trial has not been previously entered, the obvious inference being in many such cases that it was or is a sprung defence, that is a recently made up, or improvised defence. It is not the truth or otherwise of the explanation which is the chief concern of the jury, it is the fact that it has not been mentioned previously which may in an appropriate case allow the jury to draw an inference that it is a recent invention, thus assisting the jury to its ultimate conclusion as to whether or not the explanation offered at trial is true or false. That is how the prosecution attempted to employ the provisions of this section at the trial of Hearne and it was in that context that the learned judge directed the jury as he did.’

Citations:

Unreported 4 May 2000

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Qualified – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192246

Regina v Wisdom and Sinclair: CACD 10 Dec 1999

Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for the inference if that matter is agreed to be true.

Citations:

Unreported, 10 December 1999

Statutes:

Criiminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 834

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192245

Regina v Davis: CCA 1959

A judge is not entitled in any circumstances to suggest to a jury, when a man refuses to answer any questions after having been cautioned, that, if he were innocent, it is likely that he would have answered the questions.

Citations:

(1959) 43 Cr App R 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sullivan CACD 1966
The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192240

Regina v Sawyer: 2001

(Canada) the court considered the reasons underlying the need for secrecy of a jury’s deliberations: ‘The first reason supporting the need for secrecy is that confidentiality promotes candour and the kind of full and frank debate that is essential to this type of collegial decision making. While searching for unanimity, jurors should be free to explore out loud all avenues of reasoning without fear of exposure to public ridicule, contempt or hatred. This rationale is of vital importance to the potential acquittal of an unpopular accused, or one charged with a particularly repulsive crime. In my view, this rationale is sound, and does not require empirical confirmation. The Court of Appeal also placed considerable weight on the second rationale for the secrecy rule: the need to ensure finality of the verdict. Describing the verdict as the product of a dynamic process, the court emphasized the need to protect the solemnity of the verdict, as the product of the unanimous consensus which, when formally announced, carries the finality and authority of a legal pronouncement. That rationale is more abstract, and inevitably invites the question of why the finality of the verdict should prevail over its integrity in cases where that integrity is seriously put in issue. In a legal environment such as ours, which provides for generous review of judicial decisions on appeal, and which does not perceive the voicing of dissenting opinions on appeal as a threat to the authority of the law, I do not consider that finality, standing alone, is a convincing rationale for requiring secrecy. The respondent, as well as the interveners supporting its position and, in particular, the Attorney General of Quebec, place great emphasis on the third main rationale for the jury secrecy rule – the need to protect jurors from harassment, censure and reprisals. Our system of jury selection is sensitive to the privacy interests of prospective jurors (see R v Williams [1998] 1 SCR 1128), and the proper functioning of the jury system, a constitutionally protected right in serious criminal charges, depends upon the willingness of jurors to discharge their functions honestly and honourably. This in turn is dependent, at the very minimum, on a system that ensures the safety of jurors, their sense of security, as well as their privacy. I am fully satisfied that a considerable measure of secrecy surrounding the deliberations of the jury is essential to the proper functioning of that important institution and that the preceding rationales serve as a useful guide to the boundaries between the competing demands of secrecy and reviewability.’

Judges:

Arbour J

Citations:

[2001] 2 SCR 344

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192267

Regina v Devine: CANI 13 May 1992

The trial judge had drawn an adverse inference under article 3. The defendant complained that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had simply tested the prosecution case.
Held: ‘in this case it cannot be said that the accused ‘relied on a fact in his defence’ within the meaning of article 3(1)(a) because all that defence counsel did was to probe the prosecution case, without suggesting a fact which the accused relied on to a prosecution witness’.

Judges:

Hutton LCJ

Citations:

Unreported, 13 May 1992

Statutes:

Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192244

Regina v Sales: CACD 2000

The court gave guidance on the proper approach of an appellate court to an application to adduce fresh evidence is contained in the judgment of the English Court of Appeal: ‘Proffered fresh evidence in written form is likely to be in one of three categories: plainly capable of belief; plainly incapable of belief, and possibly capable of belief. Without hearing the witness, evidence in the first category will usually be received and evidence in the second category will usually not be received. In relation to evidence in the third category, it may be necessary for this Court to hear the witness de bene esse in order to determine whether the evidence is capable of belief. That course is frequently followed in this Court.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

[2000] 2 Cr App R 431

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shaw, Henry, Boreland, Mullings and Wright v The Queen PC 15-Oct-2002
PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed convictions for three capital murders, saying that an eye witness’ statement had not been disclosed at trial or admitted on appeal. This evidence descrinbed the assailants as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190039

Regina v Webb, Attorney General’s Reference (No 52 of 2003): CACD 9 Dec 2003

The reference was for an unduly lenient sentence for offences of gross indecency with a child and attempted rape.
Held: Even experienced judges could be unaware of guideline cases. In this case Millberry and the Reference 91 etc of 2002 would have guided the judge to impose different sentences. Prosecuting counsel should attend court with knowledge of the guideline cases, and be ready to provide the court with copies as necessary.

Judges:

Woolf LCJ, Gibbs, Fulford JJ

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 3731

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 91, 119 and 120 of 2002) CACD 7-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – Millberry, Morganian, Lackenby v Regina CACD 9-Dec-2002
The Court gave detailed guidelines on sentencing for offences of rape, following a report from the sentencing advisory panel.
Held: The court outlined the base sentences for single and multiple offences of rape, listing aggravating and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Pepper, Regina v Barber, etc CACD 28-Apr-2005
Each defendant appealed against the imposition of an extended sentence of imprisonment.
Held: The The provisions were unduly complicated and about to change again. Courts would see their way clear by focussing on the offence for which the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189892

Stuurman v HM Advocate: 1980

The court was asked whether a fair trial could take place at all in the light of the pre-trial publicity.
Held: The court noted that the palliative of judicial directions can never be absolutely effective, but the judge had done what he could. Lord Justice General (Emslie) said: ‘the question for us is whether on 25 January 1980 the risk of prejudice as the result of these publications was then so grave that even the careful directions of the trial judge could not reasonably be expected to remove it. In our opinion that question falls to be answered in the negative. The publications occurred almost four months before the trial diet was called. In considering the effect of these publications at the date of trial the court was well entitled to bear in mind that the public memory of newspaper articles and news broadcasts and of their detailed contents is notoriously short and, that being so, that the residual risk of prejudice to the prospects of fair trial for the applicants could reasonably be expected to be removed by careful directions such as those which were in the event given by the trial Judge.’

Judges:

Lord Justice General (Emslie)

Citations:

[1980] CLY 3011, 1980 JC 111

Cited by:

Applied – McFadyen v Annan 1992
The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair.
Held: The question should be whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187400

Regina v Fennell: 1880

Citations:

(1880) LR 7 QBD 150

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.184188

H, Regina v: CACD 28 Feb 2003

To assist the smooth flow of court work, and in the interests of open justice counsel should, in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, be ready to disclose their skeleton arguments in advance. This might not apply, for example, on applications for public interest immunity certificates, but would avoid the need for court time to be lost listening to them being read out.

Judges:

Judge, LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.180085

Regina v Hogan: CA 1960

A prison adjudication in relation to an escaped prisoner did not prevent subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of the same escape

Citations:

[1960] 2 QB 513

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Robinson, Regina v CACD 14-Jun-2017
The appellant had escaped from custody between conviction and sentence. After re-arrest he was charged with absconding, but also sentenced at prison to an additional term for escaping. He now claimed autrefois convict.
Held: The decision of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598730

Regina v LS: CACD 2009

After a juror had been discharged during the jury’s retirement, the judge directed the remaining members as follows: ‘I do not know and I am not going to enquire as to whether the juror whom I have discharged took part to any great extent in the discussions which you have had but, if she did, then you must put aside from your decisions anything that she may have to contribute to your discussions because you are now eleven and it is now a decision of eleven of you, uninfluenced by anything else, that now matters in this case.’
Held: Moses LJ said ‘We question the correctness of the judge’s directions to the jury that they should put aside from their consideration anything that the juror he discharged may have had to contribute to the discussion. That may be a direction which it is impossible or, indeed, wrong for the jury to obey. It will particularly be impossible in a case . . where the juror, prior to discharge, may well have contributed to a verdict of guilty when verdicts were delivered on different occasions.’ He went on: ‘But we do not think that that particular direction in the instant case leads to the conclusion that the verdicts are unsafe.’

Judges:

Moses LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1041

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Carter, Regina v CACD 4-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his convictions on allegations of mortgage fraud conspiracy. Two jurors had been discharged after retirement, and the defendant Said that the remaining jurors should have been warned not to take account of any comments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597255

Mansell v United Kingdom: ECHR 2003

The non-disclosure of material evidence in the trial proceedings was held to have been remedied by the Court of Appeal’s examination of the impact of the non-disclosure upon the safety of the conviction.

Citations:

(2003) 36 EHRR CD 221

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Macklin v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) SC 16-Dec-2015
Appeal against conviction (in 2003) after release of undisclosed material helpful to the defendant, including an eye witness decsription incompatible with the defendant.
Held: The court considered the developing issues as to compatibility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597512

Regina v Zephaniah Williams And William Jones: 1840

Before any of the jury were sworn, the counsel of Zephaniah Williams renewed the objection made in the former case, whereupon the Attorney-General called upon him to declare explicitly whether he objected to the prisoner being then tried upon the account of that objection, to which the counsel for the prisoner answered that he did not.

Citations:

[1840] EngR 212, (1840) 2 Mood 143, (1840) 169 ER 57

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.309638

Regina v Emmett (Stephen Roy): CACD 15 Oct 1999

When the CPS intends to seek an order for costs against a defendant, in future, the defendant must be given notice of the intention to make the application. (it may be that this is to apply in the Court of Appeal only, but this is unclear from the report).

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Emmett CACD 18-Jun-1999
The defendant appealed against conviction after being involved in sexual activity which he said was not intended to cause harm, and were said to be consensual, but clearly did risk harm. On the first occasion he tied a plastic bag over the head of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85247

Abrahams v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: CA 8 Dec 2000

The claimant had been arrested for swearing at a police officer. After her arrest, the claimant made admissions to secure a caution, rather than risk prosecution. She later sought to begin a civil action for damages against the police in the course of which she the denied the matters which she had earlier admitted.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against a strike out of her claim succeeded. The admissions had been secured by an apparent breach of duty by the officer, and she was not be estopped from bringing the claim. The formal caution is not so closely analogous to a conviction that the claimant should be barred from beginning civil proceedings because of it. An attack on the caution did not involve attacking any decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Lord Justice Mantell said: ‘the caution was not brought about by any decision of a court of justice, so did not fall foul of the rule in Saif Ali. An attack on it did not involve attacking a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Feb-2001, Times 21-Dec-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 1257, [2000] EWCA Civ 3043, [2000] Po LR 374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77618

Regina v Foster: CA 29 Mar 1984

The effect of a free pardon was to remove from the subject of the pardon ‘all pains, penalties and punishments whatsoever that from the said conviction may ensue’, but not to eliminate the conviction itself.
Watkins LJ said: ‘constitutionally the Crown no longer has a prerogative of justice, but only a prerogative of mercy. It cannot, therefore, he submits, remove a conviction but only pardon its effects. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is the only body which has statutory power to quash a conviction. With that we entirely agree.’
and ‘We understand the strength of the argument that, despite the fact that a free pardon does not eliminate the conviction, a grant of a free pardon should be reserved for cases where it can be established that the convicted person was morally and technically innocent. Furthermore, the policy of confining the grant of a free pardon to such cases has been followed by successive Secretaries of State for over a century. We therefore propose to set aside any question of a free (or full) pardon and look at the matter afresh.’
and ‘These questions, therefore, arise. (a) Is there any objection in principle to the grant of a posthumous conditional pardon? (b) Was the Home Secretary in error in failing to consider the grant of a conditional pardon in this case?
On the first question it may be objected that a conditional pardon is inappropriate where the full penalty has already been paid. The answer to this objection, however, is that it is an error to regard the prerogative of mercy as a prerogative right which is only exercisable in cases which fall into specific categories. The prerogative is a flexible power and its exercise can and should be adapted to meet the circumstances of the particular case. We would adopt the language used by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand in Burt v. Governor-General [1992] 3 N.Z.L.R. 672, 681: ‘the prerogative of mercy [can no longer be regarded as] no more than an arbitrary monarchical right of grace and favour.’ It is now a constitutional safeguard against mistakes. It follows, therefore, that, in our view, there is no objection in principle to the grant of a posthumous conditional pardon where a death sentence has already been carried out. The grant of such a pardon is a recognition by the state that a mistake was made and that a reprieve should have been granted.’

Judges:

Watkins LJ

Citations:

(1984) 79 Cr App R 61

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Shields, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 17-Dec-2008
The claimant had been convicted in Bulgaria of attempted murder. He had denied it, and somebody later confessed to the crime, but that confession had not been admitted. Having been transferred to England to complete his sentence, he now asked for a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.279914

Regina (TH) v Wood Green Crown Court: CACD 31 Oct 2006

The applicant had been committed to custody during a trial pending further evidence being submitted, and sought judicial review of the decision. He had attended court to give evidence but had appeared very reluctant.
Held: Judicial reviw of a matter relating to a trial on indictment was not and remained unavailable. The order made was such an order. The applicant had the alternatives of applying for habeas corpus or seeking damages.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Media, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245937

Regina v K (Evidence: Child video interview): CACD 10 Mar 2006

The defendant appealed admission into evidence against him of a video recording of if the child complainant.
Held: The admissibility of such a recording as evidence of indecent assault rested primarily on whether a jury could be sure that the child had given a creditable and accurate account.

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2006

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – G v Director of Public Prosecutions CACD 1997
The court considered with respect to evidence given by video interview, the need to recognise the importance of whether passages might possibly have been influenced by others. . .
Cited – Regina v Hanton CACD 2005
The court set out the test for whether a video recording of an interview was admissible: ‘Could a reasonable jury properly directed be sure that the witness has given a credible and accurate account on the video tape, notwithstanding any breaches? . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.240397

Hols v Netherlands: ECHR 19 Oct 1996

The court arranged a live link transmission where both counsel were in the room with the witness while the judge and accused remained in the courtroom.
Held: The application was declared inadmissible. The Convention does not guarantee the accused a right to be in the same room as the witness giving evidence. What matters is that the defence should have a proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against the accused. These requirements can be satisfied even where, for good reason, the accused is not physically present at the questioning.

Citations:

Unreported, 19 October 1996, 25206/94

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222105

Regina v Henry: 26 Feb 2009

British Columbia – Court of Appeal – The Court had granted permission to Mr Henry to reopen his appeal against conviction for offences of sexual assault. His case was to be that Mr X, who had already been convicted of other assaults, had instead been the perpetrator of the assaults for which he, Mr Henry, had been convicted.
Held: The court prohibited public identification of Mr X until determination of the appeal. Newbury JA observed that the public interest in the openness of trials and in the administration of justice was not diminished by withholding his identification and she concluded as follows: ‘If our society takes seriously the proposition that a person in Mr X’s position is presumed innocent until proven guilty, it seems to me that the deleterious effects, both on his privacy interests and on the administration of justice, of the publication of his name do outweigh the public interest in knowing that fact.’

Judges:

Newbury JA

Citations:

2009 BCCA 86 (CanLII)

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590537

Christie, Young, Scott v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 26 Sep 2003

The defendants appealed against their convictions based upon a faulty indictment. The Act required the that when signing a bill of indictment, the signature should bear certain words signifying the authority of the signatory. The words used were incorrect.
Held: The words used were sufficient for the purpose, and the appeals were dismissed.

Judges:

Lady Cosgrove and Lord Hamilton And Lord Justice General

Citations:

XC411/03, XC420/03, XC422/03, 2004 JC 13

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191022

Regina v Aitken; Regina v Bennett; Regina v Barson: CMAC 8 Jul 1992

Recommendation to change rules allowing judge advocate to sit alone when the question is solely an issue of law.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jul-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1006

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Armed Forces

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.86043

Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Propend Finance Pty Ltd and Others: QBD 17 Mar 1994

A Home Secretary requesting warrants must be specific on the type he required. It was his duty, and not that of the police to state the method of seizure of documents for use in a foreign jurisdiction. A judge making an order should give reasons for the order.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

Independent 29-Mar-1994, Times 05-Apr-1994, (1995) 1 Cr App R 26

Statutes:

Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Baccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo CA 1956
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation’s . .

Cited by:

At QBD – Propend Finance Property Ltd and Others v Sing and Another CA 17-Apr-1997
Diplomatic immunity had not been waived by an Australian policeman acting in breach of a court undertaking re documents. The effect of s14(1) was to give state officials protection ‘under the same cloak’ as the state itself: ‘The protection afforded . .
Cited – Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co Admn 12-May-1999
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and . .
Cited – Reyes v Al-Malki and Another SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant alleged that she had been discrimated against in her work for the appellant, a member of the diplomatic staff at the Saudi Embassy in London. She now appealed against a decision that the respondent had diplomatic immunity.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.86316

McGreevy v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1973

No Need for Direction on Circumstantial Evidence

M was charged with murdering Margaret Magee in her house. no one claimed to have seen the murder and the evidence was entirely circumstantial. When he was first tried, the jury failed to reach a verdict, but at a subsequent trial he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal to the court of criminal appeal was dismissed and he was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The point of Law certified was: ‘whether at a criminal trial with the jury in which the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the trial judge not only to tell the jury generally that they must be satisfied of the Guilt of the accused to beyond reasonable doubt, but also to give them a special Direction by telling them in Express terms that before they can find the accused guilty they must be satisfied not only that the circumstances are consistent with this having committed the crime but also that the facts proved are such as to be inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion.’
Held: There is no requirement, in cases in which the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence that the judge direct the jury to acquit unless they are sure of the facts proved are not only consistent with guilt but also inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. The question for the jury is whether the facts as they find them to be drive them to the conclusion, so that they are sure, that the defendant is guilty.
There is no rule of law that requires the trial judge to give an explanation as to the difference between proof by direct evidence and proof by circumstances leading to a compelling inference of guilt, or any requirement to use any particular form of words. It depends upon the nature of the case and the evidence.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: ‘The particular form and style of a summing up, provided it contains what must on any view be certain essential elements, must depend not only upon the particular features of a particular case, but also upon the view formed by a judge as to the form and style that will be fair and reasonable and helpful. The solemn function of those concerned in a criminal trial is to clear the innocent and to convict the guilty. It is, however, not for the judge but for the jury to decide what evidence is to be accepted and what conclusion should be drawn from it. It is not to be assumed that members of a jury will abandon their reasoning powers and, having decided that they accept as true some particular piece of evidence, will not proceed further to consider whether the effect of that piece of evidence is to point to guilt or is neutral or is to point to innocence. Nor is it to be assumed that in the process of weighing up a great many separate pieces of evidence will forget the fundamental direction, if carefully given to them, that they must not convict unless they are satisfied that guilt has been proved and has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.’
Lord Morris said: ‘in my view, the basic necessity before guilt of a criminal charge can be pronounced is that the jury are satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. so this is a conception that a jury can readily understand and buy clear exposition can readily be made to understand. so also can a jury readily understand that from one piece of evidence which they accept various influences might be drawn. it requires no more than ordinary common sense or a jury to understand that if one suggested inference from an accepted piece of evidence leads to a conclusion of guilt and another suggested inference to a conclusion of innocence a jury could not on that piece of evidence alone be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt unless they holy rejected and excluded the latter suggestion.

Judges:

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 276, [1973] 57 Cr App R 424, [1973] 1 All ER 503

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kelly v Regina CACD 15-May-2015
Appeal against a conviction for murder brought upon one issue, namely whether a failure by the prosecution to make proper disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 rendered the trial of the appellant unfair and the verdict . .
Cited – Regina v Fergus CACD 29-Jun-1993
A judge should withdraw a case which was based on poor identification evidence, and the prosecution must be sure to disclose all identification evidence. ‘In a case dependent on visual identification, and particularly where that is the only . .
Cited – Yaryare and Others v Regina CACD 13-Oct-2020
Appeal from convictions of public order offences – challenges to use of identification evidence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.546834

Regina v Evans (Jacqueline): CACD 3 Nov 2005

The applicant sought leave to withraw her application for an extension by 17 years of time to appeal against her conviction for murder. Though there was new evidence which might found an appeal, counsel had not advised her that the probable result would be a retrial.
Held: Counsel had a duty to advise a client of the likely effect of a successful appeal.

Judges:

Longmore LJ, David Steel J, Brodrick J

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.235233

Regina v Lahaye: CACD 12 Oct 2005

The defendant had faced only an indictment alleging a malcious wounding charge under s18. The judge had left to the jury the alternative of a conviction for the lesser s20 offence.
Held: The lesser charge should normally be included on the indictment expressly, but the judge had nevertheless been correct to leave the alternative to the jury, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Sir Igor Judge, President

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2005

Statutes:

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 18 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins HL 1983
The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.234549

Regina v Hartnett: CACD 2003

The defendant had pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to an excess alcohol offence. He was then committed to the Crown Court for trial on an associated charge of dangerous driving on the same occasion. He pleaded guilty to that also. He appealed saying this was an abuse under the ex parte Farley rule.
Held: The appeal failed. The court explained the special features of ex p Farley and distinguished it.

Citations:

[2003] Crim LR 719

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Regina v Forest of Dean Justices ex parte Farley CACD 1990
The prosecutor had charged the defendant first with drink driving so as to take advantage of the provision placing upon the defendant the burden of proving that he had taken drink after the traffic accident and before testing. It iintended then to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Phipps, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The appellant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. After complaints by the injured victim’s family he was further prosecuted for dangerous driving. He now appealed his conviction, having pleaded guilty when the judge failed to find an . .
Cited – LSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.229701

Regina v Chohan: CACD 29 Jun 2005

The defendant appealed his conviction complaining of the judge’s direction to the jury with regard to the admission and treatment of his previous convictions.
Held: The judge’s direction was impeccable, and indeed model. The jury should be warned clearly that a previous conviction on its own was insufficient to justify a conviction. He was not to be convicted because of his bad character. The jury should ask themselves whether the applicant’s character assisted them in considering if he were guilty.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Holland J, McCombe J

Citations:

Times 09-Sep-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.230065

Regina v Humphries: CACD 19 Jul 2005

The defendant complained that a police officer called to give evidence of his previous conviction in order to support a claim that such convictions showed a propensity to commit offences of the type alleged, had not properly presented them, putting forward details which were not properly proved.
Held: The officer had put in evidence matters of fact which were not properly proved. The foundation for proving the methods used by the defendant must be properly laid. For such details evidence from a previous complainant should be made available if necessary. Prosecutors should take care to be sure that such evidence was necessary before obtaining it. In this case however the conviction remained safe.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Goldring J, Walker J

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2005

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d) 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.230102

Regina v XY: CACD 21 Jul 2005

Defendants appealed orders made under the 2003 Act.
Held: The 2003 Act required supplementary procedural provisions in order to work. Those provisions had not been isued, and this risked, amongst other things, the wast eof judicial resources. This case wouldhave to be adjourned. The position at the moment was obscure to the point of being chaotic.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Jrobes J, Calvert-Smith J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2005

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.229651

Regina v Abdeirahman: CACD 12 May 2005

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape saying that the judge had wrongly excluded cross examination of the complainanant, in which he had wanted to establish previous false complaints by her.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant had no evidential basis for the proposed cross examination. The purpose of the rule was not for the protection of the complainant’s sexual reputation, but to protect her from the anguish of re-living previous experiences and ordeals.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Silber J, Saunders QC

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-2005

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41, Sexual Offences Act 1956 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v T CACD 2001
The defendant was not to be allowed to cross-examine the complainaint in a sexual offence case as to her previous sexual history, where there was no evidential basis for the cross-exmination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.228497

Regina v McFadden: CACD 1975

Unfair limitation of cross examination of witness by judge.

Citations:

(1975) 62 Cr Ap r 187

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Butt CACD 17-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape. In managing the time taken the judge had eventually limited a prolonged cross examination of the complainant.
Held: Judge’s had a clear duty to manage the time taken in a trial. The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.226020

Regina vMasih: CACD 27 Jan 1986

The court considered the circumstances when expert evidence might be admissible as to the defendant’s ability or inability to form the mens rea: ‘Generally speaking, if a defendant is mentally defective, or otherwise comes in the last class, ’69 and below mental defective’, then in so far as that defectiveness is relevant – relevant that is to the particular case – it may be that expert evidence should be admitted about it. That is in order to enlighten the jury upon a matter which is abnormal, and therefore ex hypothesi, presumably, outside their own experience. If it is admitted it should be confined to the assessment of the defendant’s Intelligence Quotient, and to an explanation of any relevant abnormal characteristics which such an assessment involves . . Where the defendant however is within the scale of normality, albeit, as this man was, at the lower end of that scale, expert evidence, in our judgment, is not as a rule, necessary and should be excluded.’

Judges:

Lord Lane LCJ

Citations:

[1986] Crim LR 395

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Henry, Regina v CACD 29-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for soliciting to murder and conspiracy to murder. An expert’s opinion now described him as of low intelligence and vulnerable to the sort of pressure of which he complained.
Held: The expert evidence had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.227982

HM Advocate v Ashrif: 1988

The accused had sought to recover the previous convictions of the complainant not from the prosecution, but from the Scottish Criminal Record Office.
Held: The appeal court came down firmly against permitting defence agents to recover the previous convictions of Crown witnesses: ‘In my opinion, there are very sound reasons why a diligence in these terms should not be granted. If access is to be given to such criminal records of a witness, it could not be confined to solicitors acting for accused persons but would also be available to accused persons who were appearing on their own behalf. This might then result in an accused getting full information of all offences of which the witness had been convicted even though these were not relevant and even though they had occurred many years before. If that were to be the position, the result might well be that members of the public would be slow to come forward to give evidence if they knew that their past record was liable to become public and in particular to be disclosed to an accused person to whom they might be known. This difficulty was recognised by the Thomson Committee who stated their ultimate conclusion in para 27.07 as follows: ‘While we have some sympathy with the view that the defence should be able to use previous convictions in the same way as the Crown, bearing in mind the general public interest, we are not persuaded that it is desirable that the previous convictions of witnesses should be disclosed to the accused person or his solicitor’.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk (Ross)

Citations:

1988 SLT 567

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Not Followed – Maan Petitioner 2001
The accused sought to defend a charge on indictment of assault on a special defence of self-defence and gave notice of an intention to attack the character of the complainer and the other two Crown witnesses. He sought the previous convictions of . .
Cited – Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution) PC 11-May-2005
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure.
Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.225525

Regina v Fulcher: CACD 1995

The previous non-accidental injuries sustained by the baby whom F was alleged to have murdered were relevant to show not only that the child, being in pain, was more likely to be fractious, but also how F was likely to react to the child crying. The court expressly disclaimed the suggestion that the evidence was received as similar fact evidence. The good character direction should always be given if applicable. It will always have some effect. Kennedy LJ said: ‘medical evidence was adduced to show the severity of the fatal injury and also to show that this very young child had on earlier occasions sustained injuries of a kind which were unlikely to have been sustained accidentally. The earlier injuries were also relevant as tending to show that right up to the time of the fatal injury the child would have been in some pain, and so more liable to be fractious than a normal healthy baby. The prosecution was then, in our judgement, entitled to lead evidence to show how on other occasions the appellant reacted to the crying baby, so that they could invite the jury to infer that on the critical occasion the appellant was so irritated that he resorted to gross violence. In other words, the evidence now challenged was evidence of motive. It went to the actus reus and the mans rea.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

[1995] 2 Cr App R 251

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Rex v Ball HL 1911
Evidence of sexual acts or advances other than those which are the subject of the charge is frequently adduced to show the true nature of the relationship between the parties, a practice which may be regarded as an acceptable and inevitable form of . .
Applied – Regina v Williams CACD 1986
The defendant was charged with threatening to kill.
Held: Evidence of previous threatening and violent conduct of Williams towards the victim was rightly admitted to establish an intention on the part of the defendant that the victim should . .

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 – Regina v Beedles CACD 31-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. The issue was whether a note written by the complainant to her teacher was admissible as evidence of recent complaint to corroborate her statement. Similar allegations had been made . .
Cited – Osbourne, Regina v CACD 13-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He complained at the admission of a statement made by the police surgeon who had attended him in the police station as evidence of bad character under the 2003 Act. The statement was as to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224878

Regina v Johnson; Regina v Hind: CACD 11 Apr 2005

The defendant had when at the police station refused to leave his cell to attend for interview. At trial, the judge said that the jury could take account of this as a failure to mention when questioned, something which he now wished to rely upon.
Held: No questioning had taken place, and the inference could not be left to the jury to be drawn. He had been cautioned in his cell, but that remained inadequate. The judge had sought to bring the issue in under s34(5) as under common law. That interpretation of Raviraj was inappropriate, and the common law position was better reflected by Gilbert.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Ousely J, Treacy J

Citations:

Times 03-May-2005

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gilbert CACD 1977
The defendant on a charge of murder had claimed at trial that he had acted in self-defence. He had not said anything of this sort in his police statement under caution. The trial judge had invited the jury, in the exercise of their common sense, to . .
Cited – Regina v Raviraj CACD 1986
The court described the circumstances where a defendant’s failure to provide an account of circumstances might lead to an inference being drawn against him: ‘where suspicious circumstances appear to demand an explanation, and no explanation . . . is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224883

Regina v Kuimba: CACD 12 Apr 2005

In dismissing the defendant’s appeal, the court expressed the view that the Appeal court should be more ready to use the powers given to deter hopeless appeals by ordering that while such applications were being processed, time spent in custody should not be credited as part of the sentence. Loss of time orders had been used too sparingly.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Ouseley J, Treacy J

Citations:

Times 17-May-2005

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Practice Note (Crime: Applications for leave to appeal) 1970
Directions were given for loss of time orders. . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) CACD 8-Jul-2002
. .
Cited – Practice Direction (Crime: Sentence: Loss of Time) 1980
Appellants were reminded of the courts powers to make a loss of time order in the case of inappropriate appeals against sentence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224915

Practice Direction (Jury Service: Excusal): 1988

Citations:

[1988] 1 WLR 1162

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Replaced – Practice Direction (Jury Service: Excusal) SC 22-Mar-2005
In view of the new categories of people may be called to jury service, the court gave amended guidelines on principles allowing excusal. The new categories might have greater responsibilities by way of public service commitments. Applications for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223832

Regina v F (Complainant’s sexual history): CACD 3 Mar 2005

The defendant had sought to raise the complainant’s sexual history in evidence. The allegation was that he had repeatedly raped his step daughter. He wished to put in evidence that after she had grown up, they had lived together after she had initiated sexual relations when she was 18. The judge had allowed certain parts of the evidence, but not others.
Held: Once the judge had made a finding that the criteria for admitting such evidence were met, all evidence of the type proscribed was admissible. The judge could not admit some parts only. The judge’s ruling had distorted the evidence. The judge’s obligation to protect the complainant could not prevent him allowing proper evidence to be admitted. The conviction was unsafe.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Curtis, McCome JJ

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2005

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224057

Regina v Odewale; Regina v Oshungbure: CACD 10 Mar 2005

The defendants complained that on conviction the judge had expressed himself so trenchantly that they felt he could not carry out any later confiscation proceedings without being considered biased.
Held: It was right for a judge to express himself strongly, but he should always be aware if he might have yet to make some determination of the need to avoid any show of bias. An informed observer in this case hearing the judge’s comments on conviction might see such bias, and the verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Judges:

Rose LJ, David Clarke J, Christopher Clarke J

Citations:

Times 14-Mar-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224050

Regina v Harris: CACD 19 Apr 2000

The purpose of section 74(3) was ‘not to define or enlarge the circumstances in which evidence is admissible of the fact that an accused has committed an offence, but simply to assist in the mode of proof of that fact (which it does in section 75): ’21. . . This is made doubly clear by the words which make clear that the conviction may not be adduced simply for the purposes of proving or inferring disposition. We also consider that the requirement that the evidence should be relevant ‘to any matter in issue’ is one which falls to be read not as confined to an issue which is an essential ingredient of the offence charged, but as extending to less fundamental evidential issues arising in the course of the proceedings: cf. the decision of this court in R v. Robertson (1987) 85 Cr App R 304 in relation to the words ‘any issue in those proceedings’ as contained in s. 74(1) of PACE.’

Judges:

Potter LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 19 April 2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Robertson and Golder CACD 1987
The court considered the words ‘any issue in those proceedings’ as contained in the section.
Held: The provision should be used only sparingly. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223482

Regina v Kempster: CACD 1990

Staughton LJ discussed the admission against a defendant of the fact of a co-defendant’s conviction: ‘On the more general question whether, if objection had been taken under section 78, the evidence should have been excluded, we have paid particular attention to the observation in Curry [(unreported, April 28, 1998, CA)], ‘where the evidence expressly or by necessary inference imports the complicity of the person on trial it should not be used’. The effect of admitting a conviction as evidence of the complicity of the defendant is that the prosecution will not have to call the person convicted as a witness, to give evidence on oath.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

(1990) 90 Cr App R 14

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(1) 74(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
See Also – Girma and Others, Regina v (Rev 1) CACD 15-May-2009
The court asked whether the conviction of a co-defendant was correctly admitted as evidence against her co-accused, and if not what was the effect on the fairness of the trial.
Held: The plea of the co-defendant should not have been admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223484

Regina v Maggs: CACD 1990

The charge was of causing death by dangerous driving. Sketch plans with measurements were supplied to the jury. They asked for and were given a tape measure. The defendant appealed.
Held: Though once they retired the hjury should not be given additional evidence or equipment, there was nothing wrong in supplying a magnifying glass or tape being the sort of things they might properly have with them in any event.

Citations:

(1990) RTR 129

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Regina v Davis (George) CACD 1976
After retirement, the jury requested, and was inadvertently supplied with a copy of a statement made by a witness to the police. The statement had been used by defence counsel for the purposes of cross-examination, but the document itself had not . .
Doubted in Part – Regina v Stewart and Sappleton CACD 1989
After retirement, the jury requested provision of scales which were given. The defendants faced an accusation of importing cannabis of a certain weight, and claimed to have been unaware of the presence of the cannabis in their bags.
Held: Once . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Karakaya CACD 16-Feb-2005
No Internet Research for juror
After conclusion of the trial, the jury bailiff discovered notes in the jury room which indictated that the jury, after they had retired for their verdict, had read and discussed notes obtained by a juror from the Internet relating to the case.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223472

Regina v Thomas (Horatio Gerald): CACD 9 Feb 1987

The jury had, after retirement, requested and been given a map which had not been referred to in the case. Counsel were not consulted.
Held: The use of the map was a material irregularity: ‘It is hardly necessary to say that an action of this kind runs counter to all the guidance which this court has given from time to time . . It can never be right for a jury to be provided with something which has not been part of the evidence in the trial.’ In this case the conviction was not unsafe.

Judges:

Tasker Watkins LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stewart and Sappleton CACD 1989
After retirement, the jury requested provision of scales which were given. The defendants faced an accusation of importing cannabis of a certain weight, and claimed to have been unaware of the presence of the cannabis in their bags.
Held: Once . .
Cited – Regina v Karakaya CACD 16-Feb-2005
No Internet Research for juror
After conclusion of the trial, the jury bailiff discovered notes in the jury room which indictated that the jury, after they had retired for their verdict, had read and discussed notes obtained by a juror from the Internet relating to the case.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223473

Regina v K; Regina v G; Regina v M: CACD 28 Jan 2005

Though it might be uncommon in criminal cases, the courts should be ready to award costs against a criminal appellant where he had funds and lost his case. Solicitors and counsel should have ready a detailed account of the work done in preparing for an appeal and for a renewed application for leave so that the court could decide what work was to be paid for under a representation order.

Judges:

Thomas LJ

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223221

Regina v S H: CACD 28 Mar 2003

The court discussed the difficulties in admitting a video recorded interview as a defendant’s evidence in chief. The court has wide and flexible inherent powers to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, and this includes a fair opportunity of giving the best evidence he can. The defendant had learning and communication difficulties. The court could allow him the equivalent of an interpreter to assist with communication, a detailed written statement could be read to the jury so that they knew what he wanted to say, and he might even be asked leading questions based upon that document, all in an attempt to enable him to give a proper and coherent account.

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1208

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.222465

Regina v Hare, Regina v Sullivan: CACD 9 Dec 2004

The defendants appealed their convictions, saying that counsel had been inhibited by the judge from presenting their cases properly.
Held: The judge had shown a distinct lack of courtesy to the counsel representing one defendant, without any fault on counsel’s part. Counsel had been prevented from putting relevant evidence before the jury, and the judge’s behaviour damaged the client’s confidence in the trial process. The convictions were quashed but a retrial was ordered.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Dobbs J, Sir Michael Wright

Citations:

Times 16-Dec-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener CACD 8-Jul-2004
The appellants, each convicted of murder, challenged the minimum periods of detention ordered to be served.
Held: As to the starting point for sentencing, judges should have regard to the published practice directions, and not the letter from . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jones, Regina v CACD 30-Nov-2005
The court considered appeals against tarriffs set for defendants convicted of murder in the light of the schedules to the 2003 Act.
Held: ‘The guidance given by Schedule 21 is provided to assist the judge to determine the appropriate sentence. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.221679

Regina v Marcus: CACD 23 Nov 2004

The defendant appealed his conviction saying that the video identification procedures used had been unfair. He was alleged to have carried out robberies at knife point of people who had just visited cash machines. The defendant had been given the opportunity to select other faces from a database 19,000 images, but only one had the particular characteristics identified to the police by the witness, namely facial hair and greying temples. The police used procedures involving both masked and unmasked comparisons for witnesses.
Held: Even the police had admitted that the actual procedure followed had been grossly unfair. The procedure had been a deliberate attempt to evade the protection of a defendant by the 1984 Act. The associated convictions were quashed.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Davis J, Griffiths-Williams QC J

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-2004

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220266

Regina v B (K J): CACD 1 Dec 2003

s34 is ‘a notorious minefield’.

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3080[2003] EWCA Crim 3080, Times 15-Dec-2003

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220104

In re S (Restraint Order): CACD 1 Oct 2004

The Customs had obtained a restraint order over the applicant’s assets pending its investigation of his affairs. He sought permission to use part of the money to pay the legal costs of legal advice and assistance with regard to the restraint order.
Held: The section had been passed because assets had previously been substantially dissipated on proceedings challenging the restraint itself. The Act was clear, and public funding was now available for this purpose. Stringent supervision of such orders was necessary, and the order could not be varied.

Citations:

Times 08-Oct-2004

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.216342

Regina v Underwood; Regina v Arobieke; Regina v Khan; Regina v Connors: CACD 30 Jul 2004

In each case the appeal arose from difficulties with Newton Hearings, where the defendant had wished to plead guilty but on a different version of the facts from that proposed by the prosecution.
Held: The court restated and emphasised the general guidance. So far as possible the facts upon which he should be sentenced should be the true facts. The responsibility for identifying differences began with the defence. Clear records should be kept, and it remained open to the judge to reject or accept any agreed version of the events, or to order a Newton Hearing. If a hearing was to take place it should do so immediately if possible, and the judge must be careful to ensure that he directs himself as he would a jury.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Douglas Brown, Bean JJ

Citations:

Times 01-Sep-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Newton CACD 1982
Where there is a plea of guilty but there remains a conflict between the prosecution and defence as to the facts, the trial judge should approach the task of sentencing in one of three ways: a plea of not guilty can be entered to enable the jury to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.200681