CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Jay J, Judge Marks QC)
4 August 2020
The convictions of two young offenders for a gang-related joint enterprise murder were safe. The judge had not erred in admitting evidence of relevant previous convictions and had properly directed the jury on accessorial liability. Sentences of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure imposed on the three young offenders convicted of the murder were reduced to reflect their age and circumstances.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Lavender J, Judge Chambers QC)
3 July 2020
The court outlined the type of evidence that might be adduced by a defendant charged with breaching the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 reg.23 by making illegal exports of household waste.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cutts J, Eady J)
12 February 2020
In a rape trial where the central issue was credibility, the judge had been entitled to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence of a defence witness’s bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.100(1)(b). The fact that the witness had been convicted of serious sexual offences might fairly be regarded as providing an explanation of why he might be prepared to lie to assist a friend accused of similar offences.
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) (Dingemans LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Walden-Smith)
5 December 2019
Sentences of two years’ imprisonment and two years and six months’ imprisonment imposed on two men who had stolen money from a blind busker were not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had been entitled, in the interests of justice, to depart from the sentencing guideline because of the offenders’ serious and extensive criminal records.
QBD (Admin) (Judge Cotter QC)
11 November 2019
A prisoner had not made out his challenge to a decision to recategorise him from a category D to a category C prisoner, the decision having been based on ongoing confiscation proceedings brought by HMRC and the latter’s belief that, if placed in open conditions, the prisoner might escape and seek to hide or dissipate his assets. Contrary to the prisoner’s submission, the policy on recategorisation enabled ongoing confiscation proceedings to be taken into account, and it was not necessary that a confiscation order should have been made or enforced.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Yip J, Judge Sloan QC)
7 November 2019
An order under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.41 restricting the discharge of an offender detained in hospital under s.37 for 14 offences involving indecent images of children was not justified. In his particular circumstances, the offences did not in themselves give rise to a future risk of serious harm to the public, his previous convictions were relatively minor, and he had been at large in the community since those convictions for over two years without exhibiting any violence or threats of violence.
CA (Crim Div) (Spencer J, Edis J)
26 September 2019
A sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm where the victim had been in the first trimester of pregnancy was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the injury caused with a single punch and the context of domestic violence.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Popplewell J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
14 May 2019
Evidence of a rape conviction more than 20 years old was admitted at the trial of a defendant accused of kidnapping and intent to commit a sexual offence. Although there was no evidence of continuing propensity in the years between the two offences, the cumulative effect of similar features between them amounted to a “very special and distinctive feature” within the meaning of R. v M (Michael)  EWCA Crim 3408, resulting in a striking similarity between them.
CA (Crim Div) (Andrew Baker J, Sir John Royce)
3 May 2019
A judge had erred in sentencing a repeat “third strike” domestic burglar on the basis that a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment should be imposed, which was in excess of the minimum sentencing provisions in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.111 and beyond the top of the relevant category range in the sentencing guidelines. The sentence was reduced from five years’ imprisonment to 44 months, taking into account the offender’s guilty plea.