CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Foster J)
28 January 2020
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67(3), which protected against voyeurism in the form of the recording of another person doing a private act, was not limited to protecting the privacy of a complainant from secret filming by someone who was not present during the private act in question. A participant to certain activity could be guilty of a s.67(3) offence if they secretly recorded what was otherwise a lawful event in which they had participated.
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) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Simler J, Yip J)
2 April 2019
If it was a condition of consent that Botox injections would be administered by a doctor, then that affected the question of the identity of the party administering the injections and the legal validity of the recipients’ consent. That was different to the circumstances in R. v Richardson (Diane)  Q.B. 444 and did not amount to including qualifications within the definition of “identity”.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Andrews J, Cockerill J)
30 January 2019
A judge had not erred in upholding a submission of no case to answer in respect of allegations of fraud and false accounting made against directors of a major retail company in relation to an overstatement of company profits. It was not seriously arguable that the judge had erred or acted unreasonably in requiring the prosecution to present its case on the basis of the directors’ knowledge of the unlawfulness or false accounting.
DC (Holroyde LJ, Nicol J)
4 December 2018
A magistrates’ court had erred in allowing a submission of no case to answer dismissing a charge of battery on the basis that, in the absence of any visible injury and the victim’s evidence, the video and audio evidence relied on by the prosecution was tenuous and vague. There was no doubt that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction and the court quashed the decision, directing that the case be retried by a differently constituted bench.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, William Davis J, Judge Dickinson QC)
27 September 2018
Although a judge’s summing up of identification evidence had been deficient in places, the totality of the evidence, which included cell site evidence placing the offender at the murder scene and a text message suggesting that he was with a co-defendant, meant that the conviction for murder was safe. The judge had been entitled to reject the submission of no case to answer.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, May J, Sir Wyn Williams)
26 September 2018
The court upheld a defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to possess prohibited weapons. The judge had been entitled to admit evidence of the defendant’s previous convictions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(f) after concluding that he had given a false impression about his history of drug dealing. However, a further conviction for conspiracy to possess firearms with intent to endanger life was unsafe because there was no evidence upon which a properly directed jury could have concluded that such a conspiracy existed between the defendant and any other person.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Green J, Soole J)
26 June 2018
In the context of the use of teenage drug couriers in a “county lines” drugs operation, the court considered the ingredients of the offence of arranging or facilitating the travel of children within the UK with a view to their exploitation contrary to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 s.4(1A)(b). It explained the meaning of the words “arranges” “facilitates” and “chosen”, and reiterated that the Crown did not have to prove that the teenagers were unwilling or coerced participants.
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Judge Goldstone QC)
23 May 2018
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3ZB in the case of an uninsured driver who struck and killed a pedestrian who ran into the road. His driving at 10mph above the speed limit had contributed in some more than minimal way to the death.
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, King J, Nicol J)
14 March 2018
The Court of Appeal set out how it should proceed where the prosecution, in addition to appealing against a trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer, also appealed against another ruling as permitted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.58(7). The court would have to examine the relationship between the rulings under appeal in deciding which to consider first, given that if the prosecution failed to obtain permission to appeal, the accused person would be acquitted.