CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Garnham J, Farbey J)
20 July 2020
A mother’s conviction on two counts of causing or allowing serious physical harm to her child contrary to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s.5 was quashed as the judge had erred in permitting the jury to reconsider its verdicts.
CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Mayo)
17 July 2020
A conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, committed in relation to the sale of solar panels, was upheld by the court. The judge had correctly directed the jury about inferences to be drawn from the appellant’s failure to mention facts in interview.
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.
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) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Fulford LJ, McGowan J, Cavanagh J)
29 April 2020
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the test for dishonesty in the criminal context was that set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club)  UKSC 67, expressly overruling R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran)  Q.B. 1053. The effect was that, in Ivey, the Supreme Court had altered the established common law approach to precedent in the criminal courts by stating that the test for dishonesty it had identified, albeit strictly contained in obiter dicta, should be followed in preference to an otherwise binding authority of the Court of Appeal.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Carr J, Goss J)
2 April 2020
A conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, involving two co-conspirators only, was quashed as the trial judge had erred in admitting under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.74(1) evidence of the guilty plea of one co-conspirator in the trial of the other. In a “closed” conspiracy involving only two alleged conspirators, such evidence effectively decided the central issue of whether the defendants had entered into the conspiracy and should have been excluded under s.78 of the Act.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, May J, Judge Stockdale QC)
21 February 2020
In an appeal against a rape conviction, the trial judge’s omission to direct the jury in the form recommended in R. v Sheehan (Michael)  1 W.L.R. 739 on the relevance of intoxication to intention did not render the conviction unsafe. The Sheehan direction was not a direction on a matter of law, but on how the jury should approach its fact-finding task. The jury had been directed in the clearest terms to assess the evidence and decide what factual inferences to draw.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Wendy Joseph QC)
12 February 2020
The court upheld a conviction for conspiracy to possess prohibited firearms with intent to endanger life in the case of an offender who had been involved in the importation of firearms, concealed in soft toys, from the US. It could not be said that the judge had erred in directions given to the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence.
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Spencer J, Judge Leonard QC)
21 January 2020
For the purposes of commission of the offence of possession of an article for use in fraud, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 s.6(1), the phrase “for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud” could apply to articles that were used to mislead a victim, but also to articles created later in order to disguise or mask the fraud. There was nothing in the authorities to the effect that the relevant fraud could not be one which had been committed in the past.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Sir Roderick Evans)
29 November 2019
In an indecent assault trial which turned on the comparative credibility of the complainant and the defendant, the judge should have given a full good-character direction in respect of the defendant. His failure to do so, coupled with his direction that the jury should treat the unchallenged evidence of the defendant’s character witnesses with caution, simply because they knew him well, rendered the defendant’s conviction unsafe.