Regina v Stratford Justices, ex parte Imbert: QBD 25 Feb 1999

It was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for a prosecutor to refuse to disclose witness statements in a summary case so that he could know in detail the case against him. The margin of appreciation given to signatory states allowed that.

Citations:

Times 25-Feb-1999

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88123

Regina v Stratford Youth Court, Ex Parte Conde: QBD 29 Mar 1996

A court sentencing a youth who had been committed to it for sentence, had all the powers of the original court, including the power to accept a change of plea.

Judges:

Lord Justice Leggatt and Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1996

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 56(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – S v Recorder of Manchester and Others HL 1971
S, a 16 year old boy pleaded guilty to attempted rape before a juvenile court. The magistrates adjourned the case for inquiry reports. On the adjourned hearing, his legal representative referred to evidence of the boy’s mental condition, and asked . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88125

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601862

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Criminal Practice

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597452

Bill Cleghorn, Aver Chartered Accountants: SCS 31 Aug 2017

Judges:

Lady Wise

Citations:

[2017] ScotCS CSOH – 114

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 128

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593567

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591702

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591204

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582155

Criminal Practice Directions 2015: CACD 29 Sep 2015

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581443

Rex v Sidney Pitman: 14 Feb 1916

Criminal Practice

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573742

Regina v Gilfoyle: CACD 6 Nov 1995

The Court of Appeal has power to receive and call for additional evidence in interests of justice, and even though it had been ruled inadmissible at the trial if was relevant.

Gazette 29-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 06-Nov-1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1991 23(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.86695

Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams: HL 18 Sep 1996

A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.
The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review proceedings jurisdiction to quash a decision of an inferior court, tribunal or other statutory body for error of law’
Lord Cooke of Thorndon said: ‘The right to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing finds no place in most human rights instruments, perhaps in none. It may not long survive anywhere in the United Kingdom. This case must be determined nevertheless on the footing that the right still exists here and may be of significant value, at least of a tactical kind, to the defence. Your Lordships are not entitled to prefer a changed conception of the public interest to the clear statutory law.’
‘In Ex parte Page the five members of the Appellate Committee (Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley) were unanimous that usually any error of law made by an administrative tribunal or inferior court in reaching its decision can be quashed by certiorari for error of law. There were, however, observations to the effect that as regards an inferior court of law a statutory provision that its decision is to be `final and conclusive’ or the like will confine the remedy to cases of abuse of power, acting outside jurisdiction in the narrow sense, or breach of natural justice.’
Lord Cooke agreed: ‘My Lord, in my respectful opinion it would be both illogical and unsatisfactory to hold that the law of judicial review should distinguish in principle between a committal based solely on inadmissible evidence and a committal based solely on evidence and a committal based solely on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. In each case there is in truth no evidence to support the committal and the committal is therefore open to quashing on judicial review. Nonetheless there is a practical distinction. If justices have been of the opinion on admissible evidence that there is sufficient to put the accused on trial, I suggest that normally on a judicial review application a court will rightly be slow to interfere at that stage. The question will more appropriately be dealt with on a no case submission at the close of the prosecution evidence, when the worth of that evidence can be better assessed by a judge who has heard it, or even on a pre-trial application grounded on abuse of process. In practice successful judicial review proceedings are likely to be rare in both classes of case, and especially rare in the second class.’

Lord Cooke of Thorndon
Gazette 18-Sep-1996, [1997] AC 225, [1996] 2 Cr App R 594, [1996] 3 All ER 737
Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Neill v North Antrim Magistrates’ Court HL 1992
The question before the House was whether a committal was a nullity when the magistrate had received inadmissible evidence.
Held: Committal proceedings should only be judicially reviewed in cases of ‘really substantial error leading to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – R, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
Cited – Hamill, Re Judicial Review (No 2) QBNI 8-Dec-2017
. .
Cited – Regina v Whitehaven Justices ex parte Thompson Admn 9-Oct-1998
Application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Whitehaven Magistrates’ Court to commit the applicant for trial to the Crown Court on two charges: the first, conspiring to supply heroin between December 1996 and July 1997; and the second, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.86109

S v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 13 Oct 2015

The claimant challenged the guidance to CPS to the effect that where a victim requested a review of a decision not to prosecute, the alleged offender should not be informed.
Held: Leave to bring judicial review proceedings was refused. The Guidance was entirely lawful.

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, William Davis J
[2015] EWHC 2868 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 423, [2016] 1 WLR 804, [2016] 2 All ER 385, [2016] 1 Cr App R 14, [2016] Crim LR 215
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553282

FB v Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen: HCJ 20 Feb 2015

This application raises a sharp point about the function of a sifting judge in summary criminal appeals. This Opinion is designed to emphasise that the sifting decision must relate to the stated case, notably the questions posed in it, and not to the content of any earlier, and essentially superseded, application for a stated case. The latter ought not to form any material part of the judge’s sift decision.

2015 SCL 375, [2015] ScotHC HCJAC – 14, 2015 GWD 8-150, 2015 SLT 214, 2015 SCCR 175
Bailii
Scotland

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544185

Gangar and Another v Serious Fraud Office: Admn 25 Feb 2015

Kenneth Parker J
[2015] EWHC 446 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543523

Mcclenaghan, Regina v: CCNI 18 Nov 2014

Treacy J
[2014] NICC 20
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Prime CACD 1973
Widgery LCJ said: ‘It is important in all criminal cases that the judge should on the first occasion when the jury separate warn them not to talk about the case to anybody who is not one of their number.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542761

Regina v Gill: CACD 2004

Police officers had continued the interview of a suspect despite it becoming clear that he suffered mental incapacity. The trial judge having heard an application to have the interview excluded at an early point and only gave his reasons much later, after all the evidence was heard, and he sought to justify his decision upon the basis of evidence arising in the trial which could not have influenced the decision he had taken earlier.
Held: The judgment was criticised. The absence of culpability on the part of the police is not determinative since a confession may prove to be unreliable notwithstanding. Evidence as to unreliability might emerge later (for instance subsequent medical evidence as to incapacity) but it will be relevant evidence because it pertains to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the confession.

[2004] EWCA Crim 3245
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.567513

Regina v Gough (Robert): HL 1993

The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with that brother to commit burglaries. The juror had sworn an affidavit that she had not not known of the connection.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The House set out the test for bias. The test for bias in a juror where apparent bias was alleged, was whether there was a real danger that the defendant had been denied a fair trial.
Lord Woolf said: ‘It must be remembered that except in the rare case where actual bias is alleged, the court is not concerned to investigate whether or not bias has been established. Whether it is a judge, a member of the jury, justices or their clerk, who is alleged to be biased, the courts do not regard it as being desirable or useful to inquire into the individual’s state of mind. It is not desirable because of the confidential nature of the judicial decision making process. It is not useful because the courts have long recognised that bias operates in such an insidious manner that the person alleged to be biased may be quite unconscious of its effect.
It is because the court in the majority of cases does not inquire whether actual bias exists that the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done applies. When considering whether there is a real danger of injustice, the court gives effect to the maxim, but does so by examining all the material available and giving its conclusion on that material. If the court having done so is satisfied there is no danger of the alleged bias having created injustice, then the application to quash the decision should be dismissed. This, therefore, should have been the result in the Sussex Justices case if Lord Hewart C.J’s remarks are to be taken at face value and are to be treated as a finding, and not merely an assumption, that there was no danger of the justices’ decision being contaminated by the possible bias of the clerk.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley said that was meant by bias was extraneous prejudice and predilection: ‘it possible, and desirable, that the same test should be applicable in all cases of apparent bias, whether concerned with justices or members of other inferior tribunals, or with jurors, or with arbitrators. Likewise I consider that, in cases concerned with jurors, the same test should be applied by a judge to whose attention the possibility of bias on the part of a juror has been drawn in the course of a trial, and by the Court of Appeal when it considers such a question on appeal. Furthermore, I think it unnecessary, in formulating the appropriate test, to require that the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because the court in cases such as these personifies the reasonable man; and in any event the court has first to ascertain the relevant circumstances from the available evidence, knowledge of which would not necessarily be available to an observer in court at the relevant time. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I prefer to state the test in terms of real danger rather than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of possibility rather than probability of bias. Accordingly, having ascertained the relevant circumstances, the court should ask itself whether, having regard to those circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in question, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him; ‘
‘ A layman might well wonder why the function of a court in cases such as these should not simply be to conduct an inquiry into the question whether the tribunal was in fact biased. After all it is alleged that, for example, a justice or a juryman was biased, i.e. that he was motivated by a desire unfairly to favour one side or to disfavour the other. Why does the court not simply decide whether that was in fact the case? The answer, as always, is that it is more complicated than that. First of all, there are difficulties about exploring the actual state of mind of a justice or juryman. In the case of both, such an inquiry has been thought to be undesirable: and in the case of the juryman in particular, there has long been an inhibition against, so to speak, entering the jury room and finding out what any particular juryman actually thought at the time of decision. But there is also the simple fact that bias is such an insidious thing that, even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias.’ and ‘ the approach of the law has been (save on the very rare occasion where actual bias is proved) to look at the relevant circumstances and to consider whether there is such a degree of possibility of bias that the decision in question should not be allowed to stand.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Woolf
Independent 26-May-1993, Times 24-May-1993, [1993] AC 646, [1993] 2 All ER 727, [1993] UKHL 1, [1993] 97 Cr App R 188, [1993] 2 WLR 883
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Gough CACD 2-Jun-1992
A juror had lived next door to a party to the burglary alleged against the defendant. The defendant alleged bias. The juror said she had been unaware of the connection.
Held: The question of whether there had been bias in a jury trial is . .
Cited – Rex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy KBD 9-Nov-1923
Clerk wrongly retired with Justices
There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of . .
Cited – Regina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association 1960
Even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by a bias. Devlin LJ said: ‘Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and . .
Cited – Regina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce QBD 1954
The applicant had been convicted by the Justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938 which had been brought under the authority of the Health Committee of the Cornwall County Council. The Clerk to the Justices was a councillor . .
Cited – Regina v Spencer; Regina v Smails HL 24-Jul-1986
The defendants were nurses employed at Rampton secure hospital accused of assaults on patients. The witnesses against them had been inmates. They complained that the judge had failed to direct the jurors about the dangers of relying upon their . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Francois Pierre Marcellin Thoron CACD 30-Jul-2001
The appellant had been convicted that as a haulage contractor he had conspired with his drivers to cause them to drive beyond the permitted hours, and in other ways contrary to their safety. He argued it was a misuse of the Act to ally it with the . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
Modified – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Cited – Cairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
Explained – Regina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft CA 16-Jun-1994
A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is . .
Cited – Regina v Stipendiary Magistrate for Norfolk ex parte Dean Taylor Admn 1-Jul-1997
The prosecutor applied ex parte to the magistrate for an order that he need not disclose certain material to the defendant. Though the hearing was inter partes, the content of the protected material was not shown to the defendant’s solciitor. . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Cited – Regina on the Application of Mahfouz v The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council CA 5-Mar-2004
The doctor requested members of the disciplinary tribunal to recuse themselves when, after the first day of the hearing they saw prejudicial material in newspapers which material was not in evidence. They had further declined to allow an adjournment . .
Doubted – Locabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
Cited – Meerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
Cited – In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Cited – Webb and Hay v The Queen 30-Jun-1994
(Australia) Criminal Law – Jury – Impartiality – Murder trial – Juror giving flowers to victim’s mother – Whether juror or jury to be discharged Appropriate test – Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of . .
Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Cited – Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Cited – Morrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Julian Branco Admn 24-Oct-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused. . .
Cited – Regina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Cited – Regina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
Cited – Regina v KS CACD 17-Nov-2009
The jury had been discharged by the judge after finding jury tampering, and he decided to continue alone. The jury had not known of the earlier convictions of others involved in the alleged conspiracy, but the judge did and he had made reference to . .
Cited – Regina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
Cited – Kaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
Cited – Abegaze v IPR Technical Development Ltd EAT 2-Sep-1998
The court was asked whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point of law. The claimant had requested witness orders, but the tribunal had refused them. Five of the six requested attended as defentant’s witnesses.
Held: The Industrial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.183296

E and X’, Re Bail: QBNI 11 Feb 2014

E and X applied for bail citing a failure by the proscution to obtain forensic evidence within the time period allowed.
Held: The evidence over and above the forensic evidence was strong. Bail refused.

Stephens J
[2014] NIQB 20
Bailii
Northern Ireland

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526623

CA v Public Prosecution Service (No 2): QBNI 2 Apr 2014

The applicant is the subject of an allegation of having inflicted grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (‘OAPA’). The allegations relate to an incident that occurred in 2012 when she was 16. During the course of 2013 she challenged a Public Prosecution Service (‘PPS’) conclusion that the allegation was not suitable for diversionary disposal, as an alternative to prosecution, as provided for by the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

Morgan LCJ and Coghlin LJ
[2014] NIQB 44
Bailii

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526645

ex parte HTV Cymru (Wales) Ltd: 2002

The court granted an injunction to restrain the media from interviewing witnesses during the course of a criminal trial, and until all the evidence was complete. One witness would have to be recalled, and others might be recalled, and accordingly held that the proposed interviews would constitute a contempt of court pursuant to ss.1 and 2 of the 1981 Act.
Aikens J said: ‘Of course the power of the Crown Court to grant injunctions is strictly limited to the specific matters that are set out in section 45(4). There is no general power in the Crown Court to grant injunctions. But I am satisfied that the Crown Court has the power to grant an injunction to restrain a threatened contempt of court in relation to a matter that is before the Crown Court in question.’

Aikens J
[2002] EMLR 11, [2002] EMLR 184
Supreme Court Act 198145(4), Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd QBD 2-Oct-2009
The defendant had published a story in its newspaper. At that time it attracted Reynolds qualified privilege. After the circumstances changed, the paper offered an updating item. That offer was rejected as inadequate.
Held: The qualified . .
Cited – Regina v Croydon Crown Court ex parte Trinity Mirror Plc; In re Trinity Mirror plc CACD 1-Feb-2008
An order had been made protecting the identity of a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children. The order was made in the interests of his own children, although they had been neither witnesses in the proceedings against . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.377203

Chuah, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Crown Court and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2013

Application for judicial review of refusal of leave to appeal against conviction out of time.
Held: Proceedings by way of judicial review were wrong, because the Claimant sought to undermine the basis of the conviction and so any challenge to the Crown Court rulings ought to have been by way of Case Stated.

Saunders, Hickinbottom LJJ
[2013] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520864

In re Brownlee for Judicial Review: SC 29 Jan 2014

The appellant challenged the course taken in his criminal trial after his legal team had withdrawn citing professional embarassment. No replacement team could be found willing to act in a complicated sentencing matter because of the reduced fixed fee legal aid scheme. He had succeeded at first instance, but the Court of Appeal had held the Rules to be lawful.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Rules failed to make allowance for the need for legal representatives to be paid for preparatory work in connection with sentencing had not been allowed for. However, sice the Rules had already been amended, the remedy would be by way of a declaration, rather than mandamus.
The Court of appeal had not allowed for the fact that the change of representation was initiated by the legal representatives and not by the appellant.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 4, UKSC 2013/0247, [2014] NI 188
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Appeal from – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review CANI 23-Oct-2013
The applicant had successfully challenged the Legal Aid rules as they applied to his seeking representation on a sentencing issue in the Crown Court which had led to him being unable to find legal representation because of the inadequacy of the fee . .
At First Instance – Brownlee, Re Judicial Review QBNI 20-Mar-2013
The applicant, a convicted prisoner sought a declaration that the respondent’s decision to make no provision for exceptional circumstances in the payment of fees under the 2011 Amendment Rules is unlawful and a declaration that the said Rules . .
Cited – Regina v Rowbotham and others 1988
Ontario Court of Appeal – ‘In our view a trial judge confronted with an exceptional case where legal aid has been refused and who is of the opinion that representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial may, upon being satisfied . .
Cited – McLean and Another v Buchanan, Procurator Fiscal and Another PC 24-May-2001
(Appeal from High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) It was not an infringement of a defendant’s right to a fair trial where the costs of defending the case brought against him would be substantial, but where his solicitors would be paid only a small . .
Cited – Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .
Cited – P, Regina v Misc 18-Mar-2008
Crown Court at Harrow – The Court stayed the criminal proceedings because the defendant was unable to retain counsel because of what was said to be a failure to provide adequate legal aid fees in criminal confiscation proceedings. . .
Cited – Pennock and Another v Hodgson CA 27-Jul-2010
In a boundary dispute, the judge had found a boundary, locating it by reference to physical features not mentioned in the unambigous conveyance.
Held: The judge had reiterated but not relied upon the statement as to the subjective views of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Aid

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.521153

Rahmdezfouli, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court Sitting At Wood Green and Another: Admn 9 Oct 2013

The appellant challenged the refusal to allow him to vacate a guilty plea to a charge of failures to comply with a planning enforcement notice. It had been agreed that the magistrates had failed to ask the two questions required under the 1980 Act. The claimant contended that the Crown Court Judge erred in refusing to allow him to vacate his plea after finding as a fact that the magistrates’ court clerk had ‘failed to ask the statutory questions of the applicant’ as required by s.17A of the MCA. It was not disputed that the requisite procedure had not been followed ‘in any respect’, and ‘defence counsel conferred with his client and on coming into court told the court that his client wished to plead guilty to the offence. It was argued by the Interested Party . . that it was therefore appropriate for the court to accept from what counsel said that this defendant was fully aware of the implications of the offence to which he was intending to plead guilty and should therefore be regarded as having been fully informed before making that decision.’
The claimant, submitted: ‘that there was a requirement that the defendant should at the least have explained to him by the court, in ordinary language as the section requires, of four essential things: that the offence he faced was an either way offence; that he would be asked for an indication as to his plea if the case proceeded to trial; that if he indicated he wished to plead guilty that would be treated as a guilty plea; and fourthly that the court had the power to send him to the Crown Court for sentence if it thought right so to do.’Mackay J replied: ‘The issue therefore in this claim is whether it was the intention of Parliament that a failure to follow the statutory procedure laid down in section 17A rendered all subsequent proceedings invalid and a nullity, or whether they were to be considered a procedural failure.’ The claimant submiitted that the failure in that case ‘went to the heart of the court’s jurisdiction’. A magistrates’ court only derived its jurisdiction from statute and was only entitled to try an either way offence, as opposed to a summary offence, where the statutory requirement has been fully complied with. Mackay J observed that there was ‘a clear line of authority’ supporting that submission. He referred, inter alia, to Cockshott and Ex p Machin. He noted that theauthorities were not disapproved in Ashton. Quashing the conviction, Mackay J reasoned: ‘Adopting the criterion expressed in paragraph 4 of Ashton and not disapproved by the House of Lords in [Clarke] the legislature in enacting section 17A must have intended . . acting in line with then existing authority, that where a magistrates’ court declined or failed to follow the requirements of the section it was acting without jurisdiction every bit as much as if, for instance, it had purported to try a defendant on a charge of homicide . . ..’

Moses LJ, MacKay J
[2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 377, (2013) 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 All ER 567, [2014] Crim LR 158, 177 JP 677, [2014] 1 Cr App R 20
Bailii, WLRD
Magistrates Court Act 1980 17A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin 1952
The applicant had been charged before the justices with indictable offences. He consented to summary trial but it had not been explained to him that he might be committed to the Quarter Sessions for sentence.
Held: The court allowed . .
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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516326

Jolleys, Regina v, Ex Parte Press Association: CACD 27 Jun 2013

Leveson LJ said: ‘It was for anyone seeking to derogate from open justice to justify that derogation by clear and cogent evidence: see R v Central Criminal Court ex parte W, B and C [2001] 1 Cr App R 2 and in civil cases, the Practice Guidance (Interim Non-disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1033 and Derispaska v Cherney [2012] EWCA Civ 1235 per Lewison LJ (at paragraph 14). The order was made when defence counsel asserted the likelihood of the defendant’s son suffering ‘the most extraordinary stigma through no fault of his own’ which caused the Recorder to ask the reporter what the need for identifying the son was, rather than whether it was necessary to restrict his identification.’

Leveson LJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 1135
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516262

Regina v Jones (Robert) No 2: 1972

The court was entitled to proceed to hear the case in the absence of the defendant where he had absconded. I was counsel’s prerogative not the judge’s, to decide whether he could continue to represent the defendant.

[1972] 1 WLR 887, [1972] 56 CAR 413
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.242117

Regina v G and B: CACD 2004

Rose LJ said: ‘Both in principle and pragmatically, whether a solicitor or barrister can properly continue to act is a matter for him or her and not the court, although of course the court can properly make observations on the matter’.

Rose LJ
[2004] 2 Cr App R 37, [2004] EWCA 1368
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Ulcay CACD 19-Oct-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarrassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.252539

Regina v Williams: CACD 28 Jun 2005

The defendant had been convicted of many motoring offences. In sentencing him the judge had added an Anti-Social behaviour Order, which would have the effect of imposing a greater punishment for any further offences than would be possible for the offences themselves.
Held: The order if used for that purpose was improper.

Mance LJ, Elias J, Sir Charles Mantell
Times 15-Jul-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1796
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hall CACD 2004
The court considered the propriety of making an anti-social behaviour at the same time as sentencing for traffic offences: ‘There is nothing wrong in principle in making such an order when there are driving offences of such a regularity and type and . .
Cited – Regina v Kirby CACD 2005
The court asked when it might be able to add an anti-social behaviour order when sentencing: ‘To make an anti-social behaviour order in a case . . . Where the underlying objective was to give the court higher sentencing powers in the event of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.228612

Lawson, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 2 Aug 2013

The claimant renewed his applucation for leave to bring judicial review of decisions regarding enforcement of a confiscation order.

Treacey LJ, Foskett J
[2013] EWHC 2434 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514300

Twomey, Cameron And Guthrie v The United Kingdom (Judgment): ECHR 28 May 2013

Ineta Ziemele, P
67318/09 22226/12 – Admissibility Decision, [2013] ECHR 578
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 2003 46(3)
Human Rights
Citing:
Legal Summary – Twomey, Cameron and Guthrie v The United Kingdom (Legal Summary) ECHR 28-May-2013
ECHR Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Equality of arms
Independent tribunal
Trial by judge sitting alone owing to risk of jury tampering: inadmissible
Facts – The case . .

Cited by:
Principal judgment – Twomey, Cameron and Guthrie v The United Kingdom (Legal Summary) ECHR 28-May-2013
ECHR Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Equality of arms
Independent tribunal
Trial by judge sitting alone owing to risk of jury tampering: inadmissible
Facts – The case . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511077

In re Norris, Application by Norris: HL 28 Jun 2001

The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was held that the civil court was looking to different issues. In the Crown Court the onus had been on the husband. She had no right of representation, and her interests were not the same as those of her husband. She was to be allowed to challenge the order made. As the registered proprietor, the burden of proof lay on customs and excise.
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough referred to earlier cases: ‘These are illustrations of the principle of abuse of process. Any such abuse must involve something which amounts to a misuse of the litigational process. Clear cases of litigating without any honest belief in any basis for doing so or litigating without having any legitimate interest in the litigation are simple cases of abuse. Attempts to relitigate issues which have already been the subject of judicial decision may or may not amount to an abuse of process. Ordinarily such situations fall to be governed by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam or of issue estoppel (admitted not to be applicable in the present case). It will be a rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse.’

Hope, Browne-Wilkinson, Clyde, Hutton, Hobhouse LL
Times 29-Jun-2001, Gazette 26-Jul-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1388, [2001] UKHL 34, [2001] 3 FCR 97, [2001] 3 All ER 961
Bailii, House of Lords
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
Appeal from – Clifford R Norris, Re; In the Matter of an Application By Teresa W Norris CA 27-Jan-2000
After a drugs trial, the commissioners sought a confiscation order against the defendant’s assets. The defendant’s wife argued that the house was in reality hers. The trial judge found against her. In later proceedings enforce the order, the wife . .
Cited – Ashmore v British Coal Corporation CA 1990
The plaintiff was one of many female employees who complained to the industrial tribunal that she was paid less by the defendant than her male counterparts. Sample cases were selected for trial and the others stayed pending a decision. It was an . .
Cited – Mcintosh v HM Advocate HCJ 31-Oct-2000
An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated . .
Cited – Abbas Kassimali Gokal v Serious Fraud Office CA 16-Mar-2001
The defendant was convicted of an offence to which section 15 of the Theft Act did not apply. It involved a deception of the auditors of BCCI in concealing a number of substantial loans made to a group of companies run by the defendant. Buxton J had . .

Cited by:
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies in which she claimed a 50% interest.
Held: Despite the finding that she . .
Cited – Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
Cited – Larkfield Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and Others CA 12-May-2010
The defendant in criminal proceedings (M) had been found to be beneficial owner of property. The company, its registered proprietor appealed against an order declaring the property to be a realisable asset of M. The respondent had said the . .
Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.82076

Adgyei, Regina v: CACD 11 Aug 2016

Conviction in Excess of Jurisdiction

Appeal against conviction by the unusual route of a certificate of the trial judge. The defendant had been convicted of having a bladed article and of resisting a police constable. He had been convicted by a jury of an offence triable only summarily.
Held: Upon the entry of the not guilty plea, the Crown Court ceased to have jurisdiction, and should have remitted to the Magistrates. The conviction was quashed.

Bean LJ, Foskett, Hickinbottom JJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 1405
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.570715

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 reason of his disability, it should proceed to decide whether he had done the acts alleged and, if satisfied that he had, should then consider medical evidence and all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether an order under section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act was appropriate.
Held: Though the prosecutor’s appeal succeeded, the matter should not be remitted because of the delay. The were two separate questions; whether the defendant was able to understand and plead to the charge against him, and whether he would be able to take an effective part in the trial. It was for the court to decide this, not the doctors: ‘the medical evidence should be considered as part of the evidence in the case and not as the sole evidence on a freestanding application.’ That another court may have decided that a defendant was doli incapax did not prevent a later court taking a case forward. It had to decide the matter afresh. The power and duty to consider this was a continuing one throughout the trial. Obiter, section 34 has not abolished the doctrine of doli incapax, the presumption of incapacity for a child over 10. The change ruled out the presumption of incapacity, not the ability of a court to apply the doctrine where appropriate: ‘it must be the presumption that has been abolished.’

Smith LJ, Gross J
[2007] EWHC 946 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 628, [2008] 1 WLR 1005
Bailii
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 11(2), Mental Health Act 1983 37(3), Crime and Disorder Act 1998 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (P) v Barking Magistrates Court Admn 2002
P, a 16 year old boy with learning difficulties faced charges. A psychologist said his IQ was so low (52) that P would not be able to understand or reply rationally to the charges. The justices decided that he was fit to plead; they had formed a . .
Cited – Rex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
Cited – TP, Regina (on the Application of) v West London Youth Court and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
It had been submitted to the youth court that a boy of 15, with the intellectual capacity of an 8 year old, ought not to face trial. The district judge decided that the trial should proceed and the defendant sought judicial review.
Held: The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – White, Regina (on the Application of) v the Justices of Barking Magistrates’ Court Admn 25-Feb-2004
A court was correct to refuse to enforce an expectation which was assumed to be otherwise legitimate on the basis that a sentence passed in accordance with that expectation would have been outside the range available to the sentencing court and . .
Cited – White, Regina (on the Application of) v the Justices of Barking Magistrates’ Court Admn 25-Feb-2004
A court was correct to refuse to enforce an expectation which was assumed to be otherwise legitimate on the basis that a sentence passed in accordance with that expectation would have been outside the range available to the sentencing court and . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v T CACD 16-Apr-2008
The twelve year old defendant had pleaded guilty to several allegations of sexual assault. The judge had ruled that it was not open to him to plead doli incapax. He appealed saying that only the presumption of doli incapax had been abolished, and . .
Cited – JTB, Regina v HL 29-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual assaults. He was aged twelve at the time of the offences, but had been prevented from arguing that he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. The House was asked whether the effect of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.251535

Revitt, Borg and Barnes v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Sep 2006

The defendants appealed against refusal of leave to withdraw their pleas of guilty. They argued that the current practice infringed their human rights.
Held: The magistrates had been correct not to allow the defendants to withdraw their pleas. Where a defendant makes an unequivocal plea of guilty which the court accepts, the defendant is thereupon ‘proved guilty according to law’ within the meaning of Article 6(2). The presumption of innocence ceases to apply and he can be sentenced on the basis that he has been proved guilty. A guilty plea can only found a ‘conviction’ and bring to an end the presumption of innocence where it is unequivocal. If it is equivocal, it must be treated as a plea of ‘not guilty’. If after an unequivocal plea of guilty has been made, it becomes apparent that the defendant did not appreciate the elements of the offence to which he was pleading guilty, then it is likely to be appropriate to permit him to withdraw his plea.

Lord Phillips LCJ, Bean J
Times 14-Sep-2006, [2006] EWHC 2266 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 3172, [2007] 1 Cr App R 19, [2007] RTR 23, (2006) 170 JP 729
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – S v Recorder of Manchester and Others HL 1971
S, a 16 year old boy pleaded guilty to attempted rape before a juvenile court. The magistrates adjourned the case for inquiry reports. On the adjourned hearing, his legal representative referred to evidence of the boy’s mental condition, and asked . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 23-Mar-1972
(Commission) The applicant said that having been pressured into pleading guilty: ‘The Commission examined this complaint under Article 6 (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and also under Article 6(2) (Art. . .
Cited – Regina v Bournemouth Justices, ex parte Maguire 1997
If magistrates having heard an application for leave to withdraw a plea of guilty conclude that the evidence described by the prosecution are not sufficient to find guilt, they may allow the plea to be withdrawn. Kennedy LJ: ‘Of course the court . .
Cited – RO v United Kingdom ECHR 11-May-1994
(Commission) The applicant complained that the court had refused to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty: ‘It is in the first place for the domestic authorities to determine rules regulating procedural aspects of criminal proceedings, subject to . .
Cited – Regina v South Tameside Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Rowland 1983
If after the defendant enters an unequivocal plea of guilty it becomes clear that the defendant did not appreciate the elements of the offence to which he was pleading guilty, then it may be appropriate to permit him to withdraw his plea. . .
Adjourned from – Revitt and others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 17-Jul-2006
Short adjournment. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.244861

Parsons v Barnes: 1973

In the context of trading standards legislation: ‘No general proposition could be laid down that one partner was necessarily responsible for the acts of his co-partner under the legislation.’

Lord Widgery CJ
[1973] CLR 537
England and Wales

Consumer, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.570268

The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom: ECHR 18 Jan 1978

The UK lodged a derogation with the Court as regards its human rights obligations in Northern Ireland because of the need to control terroist activity. The Government of Ireland intervened. From August 1971 until December 1975 the UK authorities exercised a series of ‘extrajudicial’ powers of arrest, detention and internment in Northern Ireland. The case concerned the Irish Government’s complaint about the scope and implementation of those measures and in particular the practice of psychological interrogation techniques (wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise and deprivation of sleep, food and drink) during the preventive detention of those detained in connection with acts of terrorism.
Held: The IRA had for a number of years represented ‘a particularly far-reaching and acute danger for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, the institutions of the six counties and the lives of the province’s inhabitants’. However, the Court found the methods to have caused intense physical and mental suffering. The article 15 test was accordingly not discussed, but the Court made valuable observations about its role where the application of the article is challenged: ‘(a) The role of the Court. The limits on the Court’s powers of review are particularly apparent where Article 15 is concerned. It falls in the first place to each Contracting State, with its responsibility for ‘the life of [its] nation’, to determine whether that life is threatened by a ‘public emergency’ and, if so, how far it is necessary to go in attempting to overcome the emergency. By reason of their direct and continuous contact with the pressing needs of the moment, the national authorities are in principle in a better position than the international judge to decide both on the presence of such an emergency and on the nature and scope of derogations necessary to avert it. In this matter, Article 15(1) leaves those authorities a wide margin of appreciation. Nevertheless, the States do not enjoy an unlimited power in this respect. The Court, which, with the Commission, is responsible for ensuring the observance of the States’ engagements (Art. 19), is empowered to rule on whether the States have gone beyond the ‘extent strictly required by the exigencies’ of the crisis. The domestic margin of appreciation is thus accompanied by a European supervision.’ Torture is a strong word. In human rights instruments only deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering ranks as torture. Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.’
ECHR Judgment : Revision rejected : Third Section

G Balladore Pallieri P
5310/71, Series A no 25, p 65, [1978] ECHR 1, (1978) 2 EHRR 25, [2018] ECHR 247
Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 815
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .
Cited – Osman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.164875

Mulosmani v Albania: ECHR 8 Oct 2013

ECHR Article 6
Presumption of innocence
Public accusation of murder made by chairman of independent political party in immediate aftermath of shooting: inadmissible
Facts – In September 1998 a Member of Parliament and his bodyguards were shot and fatally wounded as they came out of the Democratic Party headquarters in Tirana. Immediately afterwards, the Party Chairman, a well-known public figure, went on air accusing the applicant, a police officer, of the crime. It appears that an official Democratic Party press statement was issued later the same day also identifying the applicant as the killer. Over a year later, in December 1999, a district court ordered the applicant’s arrest at the request of the prosecutor investigating the case. Both the district court and the prosecutor expressly noted that the Democratic Party Chairman had mentioned the applicant’s name as being the perpetrator of the crime. The applicant was arrested in May 2001. At his trial he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia, that the Democratic Party Chairman’s comments in September 1998 had deprived him of the benefit of the presumption of innocence, in breach of Article 6-2 of the Convention.
Law – Article 6-2: The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6-2 is violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law.
In the instant case, however, the Democratic Party Chairman could not be regarded as having acted as a public official within the meaning of Article 6-2. He had not been involved in the criminal investigation into the murder as a police officer, investigator or a prosecutor. He did not hold public office or exercise public authority and, in fact, no powers had been formally delegated to him by any State body. He had acted as a private individual, in his capacity as the chairman of a political party which was legally and financially independent from the State. His statement, which was made in a heated political climate, could be regarded as his party’s condemnation of the MP’s assassination. As such, the mere fact that his actions might have been socially useful in calling for justice to be rendered did not transform him into a public official acting in the public interest.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also, mutatis mutandis, Kotov v. Russia [GC], 54522/00, 3 April 2012, Information Note 151)
The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 6-1 and 3 (a) to (d) of the Convention.

29864/03 – Chamber Judgment, [2013] ECHR 924, 29864/03 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 1170
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.518430

Kostovski v The Netherlands: ECHR 20 Nov 1989

No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial

K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled him to demonstrate the witnesses unreliability.
Held: There had been a violation of article 6(3)(d) where the court treated the statements of anonymous witnesses, who had been examined in the absence of the accused and his representatives, as sufficient proof of guilt of armed robbery. The Court explained its approach: ‘In principle, all the evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument. This does not mean, however, that in order to be used as evidence statements of witnesses should always be made at a public hearing in court: to use as evidence such statements obtained at the pre-trial stage is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs (3)(d) and (1) of Article 6, provided the rights of the defence have been respected.
As a rule, these rights require that an accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness was making his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings.’ and ‘The right to a fair administration of justice holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that it cannot be sacrificed to expediency. The Convention does not preclude reliance at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings on sources such anonymous informants. However, the subsequent use of anonymous statements as sufficient evidence to found a conviction as in the present case is a different matter. It involved limitations on the right of the defence which were irreconcilable with the guarantees contained in Article 6.’

[1990] ECHR 8, [1989] ECHR 20, 11454/85, (1989) 12 EHRR 434, [1989] ECHR 20
Worldlii, Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Doorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .

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 . .
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Illustrative – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – AG for the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia v Steinhoff PC 19-Jul-2005
(Akrotiri and Dhekelia) The defendant had appealed convictions for rape and attempted rape. He had criticised the arrangements for protecting the complainant when giving evidence, which had not complied with the 1999 Act. His appeal succeeded in . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v Regina CACD 3-Nov-2005
The defendant had been tried for indecent assaults. The complainant having died before the trial, the judge had ruled that her written statements were admissible. The defendant said he had not had a fair trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.165041

Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander: Admn 27 Jul 2010

The defendant had crashed his car after driving off with a girl, and while being chased by another car driven by her boyfriend. The police first cautioned him for false imprisonment, but then prosecuted him for careless driving. The prosecutor appealed against a successful plea of autrefois convict. The defendant said that the offence for which he was cautioned and the summons he now faced were the same incident.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The offences were different. In the one case the offence was the manner of driving, and the other the detention of the woman. The victims were different, and the modes of trial were different, so that in some circumstances there would have been two trials. Nor was any explicit promise given by the police.

Stanley Burnton LJ, Treacy, Nicol JJ
[2010] EWHC 2266 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 519, [2010] ACD 98
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 3, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
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 – Nicholas v Chester Magistrates Court Admn 11-Jun-2009
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal by the respondents to state a case. . .
Cited – Gore, Regina v; Regina v Maher CACD 14-Jul-2009
The defendants appealed aginst their convictions for inflicting grievous bodily harm. When first arrested they had been issued with fixed penalty tickets for much lesser offences. The police officers did not anticipate the seriousness of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.424081

Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA): Admn 24 Apr 2012

The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA conducting a private prosecution was not a ‘prosecutor’ able to take the benefit of section 31 of the 2006 Act. She argued that the power under section 31 of the 2006 Act to certify conclusively for the purposes of limitation when matters came to the prosecutor’s knowledge was a power that was restricted to state prosecutors and not to private prosecutors.
Held: After a review of the provisions of the Act, the power was a power available to all prosecutors.
The phrase ‘the prosecutor’ in section 31 of the 2006 Act is not limited to prosecutors who prosecute pursuant to a power conferred by some statutory provision but applies to anyone who initiates a prosecution under the Act. The absence of a remedy by way of judicial review against a private prosecutor was not a basis to conclude that section 31 was to be interpreted so as to exclude private prosecutors from its ambit. The magistrates’ court in which a prosecution is brought can investigate whether or not the proceedings have been brought within the time limit specified in section 31 of the Act and it can also investigate whether any certificate issued under section 31(2) should be treated as conclusive of the facts stated therein. Once an appropriate procedure exists for contending that the prosecutor has not brought proceedings within time or that the certificate issued under section 31(2) should not be treated as conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein the absence of a remedy by way of judicial review loses much of its significance.

Sir John Thomas P
[2012] EWHC 1002 (Admin)
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4 31, Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 127(10
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kerr v John Mottram Ltd ChD 1940
The court considered an application by a shareholder of a company to enforce an alleged contract for the sale of shares that he claimed were offered to him at a meeting of the company. The minutes of the company meeting did not support the . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Magistrates’ Court ex parte Amvrosiou Admn 13-Jun-1996
When the appellant appeared at the Magistrates’ Court to answer a charge of driving whilst uninsured, a preliminary point was taken on her behalf that the prosecution had not been commenced within 6 months of the date on which evidence sufficient in . .
Cited – Terra Woningen BV v The Netherlands ECHR 17-Dec-1996
A court had considered itself bound by a decision of the Provincial Executive within the Netherlands adverse to the applicant company.
Held: That was in breach of article 6(1). There was not access to a tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
Cited – Burwell v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 1-May-2009
The defendant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates to accept a prosecutor’s certificate as to compliance with time limits for commencing the prosecution. He argued that the police had all the evidence in their possession at an earlier . .

Cited by:
Applied – Browning v Lewes Crown Court and RSPCA Admn 24-Apr-2012
The claimant appealed against the refusal by the respondent to state a case regarding its conviction of the claimant of offences under the 2006 Act.
Held: In view of the case of Perkins, the application failed save that the Crown Court should . .
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.452904

E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 10 Jun 2011

Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. It was said that the applicant had herself been groomed by an adult to commit the offences. Nevertheless the respondent had found the evidentiary and public interest tests satisfied.
Held: The request for review succeeded. It was for the DPP and not the court to decide CPS policies. The court’s duties are restricted to testing the lawfulness of a policy. It was impossible to say the policy applied was unlawful.
However the policy had not been correctly applied. The strategy group considering the case had specifically recommended against prosecution for several strong reasons: ‘the decision letter simply does not engage at all with what the report had said, in very plain and concerning terms, about the adverse effects on the welfare of all three children of the decision to prosecute’. The claim succeeded on this point.
The challenge to the decision itself as a disproportionate response failed.
Though such a case should normally be brought within the criminal system, in this case the victims themselves had applied, and since they could only apply in the Administrative Court and since the claims related to the same issues, the entire claim had been properly brought.

Munby LJ, McCombe J
[2011] EWHC 1465 (Admin), [2012] Crim LR 39, [2012] 1 Cr App R 6
Bailii
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 10, United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 3.1 39, United Nations 1985 Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, Sexual Offences Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Kent ex parte L 1991
The discretion which is vested in the Crown Prosecution Service to continue criminal proceedings commenced by the police is subject to judicial review by the High Court, but only where it can be shown that the decision was made regardless of, or . .
Cited – C v Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C 1995
A CPS decision not to prosecute was quashed because the decision-maker had failed to have regard to one of the matters identified in the relevant part of The Code for Crown Prosecutors. . .
Cited – ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
Cited – Suppiah and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 11-Jan-2011
Wyn Williams J said: ‘a policy which is in principle capable of being implemented lawfully but which nonetheless gives rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making is itself an unlawful policy.’ . .
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Cited – LM and Others v Regina; Regina v M(L), B(M) and G(D) CACD 21-Oct-2010
Each defendant appealed saying that being themselves the victims of people trafficking, the prosecutions had failed to take into account its obligations under the Convention.
Held: Prosecutors had ‘a three-stage exercise of judgment. The first . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – H and L v A City Council CA 14-Apr-2011
The court was asked when and how it is proper for a local authority to make disclosure to someone’s commercial contacts of the fact that he is a convicted sex offender.
Held: Where human rights are involved, the appropriate standard of review . .
Cited – Re E (A Child); E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Another (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and others intervening) HL 12-Nov-2008
(Northern Ireland) Children had been taken to school in the face of vehement protests from Loyalists. The parents complained that the police had failed to protect them properly, since the behaviour was so bad as to amount to inhuman or degrading . .
Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited – Ulke v Turkey ECHR 24-Jan-2006
A prosecution was held to breach Article 3. The applicant had been convicted for the eighth time of offences relating to his conscientious objection to military service in circumstances where he was, despite his convictions, not exempted from his . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 11-May-2004
The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .

Cited by:
Cited – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Children

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.440576