CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Spencer J, William Davis J)
19 December 2019
It was for the defence at trial to take decisions as to whether to use or act on disclosed unused material, and a failure to inspect such material was unlikely to justify a later application, following conviction, for it to be introduced as fresh evidence. The court emphasised that only in exceptional circumstances would evidence be admitted that could have been adduced at trial.
QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
17 December 2019
A Polish national who had allegedly stabbed a victim in Slovenia could not be extradited to Poland as the requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 s.64(4)(b) was not satisfied, namely that the conduct had to constitute an extra-territorial offence under UK law. The relevant extra-territorial offence under UK law would be attempted murder, but it could not be necessarily implied from his conduct that the individual had intended to kill the victim.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
24 October 2019
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive in respect of a husband who had been convicted of the attempted murder of his wife. The sentencing judge had erred in not giving proper consideration as to whether the offender’s adjustment disorder had impaired his mental functioning. The appropriate sentence was one of 17 years’ imprisonment.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Nicol J, Butcher J)
27 June 2019
The court considered the principles applicable where the prosecution called a witness but only considered part of their evidence worthy of belief, and wished to adduce other evidence to contradict the part that it considered inaccurate or false, without applying to have the witness declared hostile.
SC (Lord Reed DPSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lady Black JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC, Lord Sales JSC)
6 June 2019
The court interpreted condition 4, set out in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 s.1(6), which allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to issue a certificate directing that a trial should be conducted without a jury if he suspected that an offence had been committed as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility of one person or group of persons towards another person or group of persons. The condition could be relied upon in respect of a member of the armed forces who shot a person whom he suspected of being a member of the IRA.
CA (Crim Div) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Goss J, Judge Kinch QC)
16 April 2019
A judge had erred in stating that the sentence he imposed on an offender who had been convicted following a retrial would start on the day he was sentencing him. In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 Sch.2 para.2(3), the sentence should have commenced from the date the equivalent sentence passed following the original trial would have begun.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Goose J, Judge Kinch QC)
11 April 2019
A total sentence of two-and-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for a robbery at a convenience store whist carrying of a knife and an attempted robbery of a bookmakers was unduly lenient. The judge had significantly understated the gravity of the offending and had overstated the allowance to be made for the offender’s mitigation.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Cheema-Grubb J)
31 January 2019
A total extended sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for historic offences of attempted buggery, indecency with a child and indecent assault on a man committed by an individual aged 20-25 against his neighbour aged 10-14, whilst lenient, was not unduly so. Although aspects of the judge’s reasoning had been flawed, the offences had very unpleasant features and there had been an element of grooming, no violence had been used.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Carr J, Judge Picton)
22 November 2018
A determinate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm was unduly lenient and replaced with a 17-year extended sentence where the offender had attacked a sex worker with a claw hammer having been released on licence from a life sentence for manslaughter. He was a dangerous offender and the judge had been wrong in principle when sentencing to take account of how the Parole Board would approach the offender’s release.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Butcher J, Judge Katz QC)
9 November 2018
The court upheld an offender’s convictions for indecent assault and attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm committed against his younger brother when they were both under 18. It could not be said that the manner in which the trial was conducted by the offender’s own counsel was so flawed as to render his conviction unsafe.