CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Cutts J, Tipples J)
23 July 2020
A lie about fertility was not sufficiently closely connected to the performance of sexual intercourse so as to be able to negate consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.74. It related to the possible consequences of unprotected sex but not to the physical performance of the act itself.
QBD (Admin) (Cutts J)
10 July 2020
A district judge had not erred in refusing to issue a summons against the former Prime Minister Tony Blair for administering a noxious substance contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.23. The court had no territorial jurisdiction as the “mischief” complained of, namely the use of Depleted Uraniam bullets, took place in Iraq.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Murray J)
30 June 2020
A jury’s decisions to convict a defendant of oral rape but to acquit of vaginal rape were not irreconcilable where the victim had been asleep at commencement of the oral sex and had mistaken the offender for her boyfriend. Social media messages detailing the defendant’s involvement in a sexual conquest game were properly admitted as important explanatory evidence and evidence relevant to consent and the jury had been correctly directed as to the relevance of the messages.
DC (Flaux LJ, Elisabeth Laing J)
29 June 2020
An offence under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 s.67 was complete when a police constable or authorised person reasonably believed that an individual was drinking alcohol, and had a container for alcohol, in breach of a public spaces protection order. Once that reasonable belief had been established, it did not matter that the person later showed that there was no alcohol present.
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Holgate J, Judge Lucraft QC)
17 June 2020
Evidence that a foreign national who had pleaded guilty to the production of cannabis was a victim of human trafficking at the time the offence was committed was admitted as fresh evidence over 12 months after sentencing. The Crown did not oppose the vacation of plea and it would be an injustice to allow the conviction to stand.
PC (Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales)
8 June 2020
The court examined the operation of the regime in the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act 1996 (Antigua and Barbuda) Pt IV headed “Freezing and Forfeiture of Assets in Relation to Money Laundering” and the regime in Pt IVB headed “Civil Forfeiture”. It analysed the effect of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda on those regimes. The Act’s freeze order and civil forfeiture provisions were intended to operate in combination as an integrated regime and they did so in the civil rather than the criminal sphere. The practical effect of a finding that a defendant had engaged in money laundering was to place the burden on them to show to the civil standard that any property they owned had been acquired by legitimate means and sources of funding. That was reasonable and did not amount to charging the defendant with a criminal offence within the meaning of section 15 of the Constitution. The regime was proportionate and compatible with the Constitution.
SC (Lord Kerr JSC, Lady Black JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC, Lord Kitchin JSC, Lord Burnett JSC)
13 May 2020
The seriousness of the consequences of a decision was a consideration to be taken into account in deciding whether a power had to be exercised by a minister personally. It was doubtful whether there was a presumption that the Carltona principle, allowing ministerial powers to be delegated, should apply to a power absent contrary statutory language. Even if there was a presumption, it was displaced in relation to the secretary of state’s power to make an interim custody order under the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 art.4(1): the statutory language was unambiguous, and the consequences of the decision were that an individual could be kept in custody, possibly indefinitely.
CA (Crim Div) (Lindblom LJ, Hilliard J, Judge Flewitt QC)
6 May 2020
On a true construction of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 reg.5, the consequence of any breach of the exemption requirements under Sch.2 para.3(1) was that a waste treatment company’s operation was no longer an “exempt waste operation” and had ceased, on the breach, to be an “exempt facility”. At that point it could only be a “regulated facility”, for which no permit had been granted.
CA (Crim Div) (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Sweeney J, May J)
1 May 2020
An appeal brought, following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, on behalf of a deceased husband against his 2005 conviction for the “Lady in the lake” murder of his wife in 1976 was dismissed. Notwithstanding the non-disclosure of relevant prosecution evidence, the strength of the circumstantial case against the husband had been very strong.
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Swift J)
6 April 2020
It was a criminal offence for a shop to offer food for sale after its labelled use by date. The words “deemed to be unsafe” in Regulation 1169/2011 art.24 created an irrebuttable presumption that food placed on the market with an expired use by date was “unsafe” for the purposes of Regulation 179/2002 art.14.