CA (Crim Div) (Elias LJ, Thirlwall J, Judge Burbidge QC)
4 February 2016
A judge had erred when directing a jury in relation to the potential defences to offences of possession of indecent photographs of children and extreme pornographic images.
QBD (Admin) (Leggatt J)
16 November 2015
Even though a prisoner had not been released 18 months after the Parole Board had given a direction which was intended to result in his release on licence, the delay had not been caused by any breach of statutory duty or discrimination.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Stewart J, Edis J)
7 August 2015
The murder convictions of four men, following the fatal shooting of a man in the context of an ongoing feud between two drug gangs, were safe. The trial judge’s summing up had not been biased in favour of the prosecution, and in relation to one of the defendants he had been right to admit evidence of his convictions for attempted murder committed shortly before the alleged murder and the fact that he had been shot two months earlier.
SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Mance JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Toulson JSC)
4 March 2015
The retention by the police of records of an elderly and non-violent man’s participation in demonstrations organised by an extremist protest group was proportionate for the purposes of ECHR art.8. The police’s policy on the retention of data in relation to harassment cases was not unlawful.
QBD (Admin) (King J)
9 December 2014
Where the court made a contingent destruction order in respect of a prohibited dog and the owner complied with the contingency by obtaining an exemption from the prohibition in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1(3) within the requisite period, the police could not, as they had in the instant cases, summarily destroy the dogs because they believed that the exemption had ceased to exist. Where that was the case, the police would have to apply to the court for a destruction order.
CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Burton J, Judge Batty QC)
6 February 2014
The court gave guidance regarding the assessment of a complainant’s mental capacity in a criminal trial when the alleged offences involved proof of a lack of consent.
CA (Crim Div) (Aikens LJ, Wyn Williams J, Judge Barker QC)
4 February 2014
Convictions for fraud by abuse of position were quashed in respect of a husband and wife who had withdrawn £100,000 of an elderly relative’s money from a joint bank account and used it purchase a property, the legal title of which they transferred to their daughter. The husband had had the authority to remove the money as a joint account holder and the jury had not been properly directed that the relative’s equitable interest in the property remained despite the transfer of legal title.
SC (Lord Mance JSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Wilson JSC, Lord Hughes JSC, Lord Toulson JSC )
20 November 2013
A European arrest warrant issued by a ministry of justice in respect of a convicted person could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Decision 2002/584 and the Extradition Act 2003 Pt 1 if the ministry only issued the warrant at the request of, and by way of endorsement of a decision to issue a warrant by, the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry issuing a warrant of its own motion or at the request of a non-judicial authority could not be regarded as a judicial authority.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ DBE, Bean J, Burnett J)
18 October 2013
An offender who was mistakenly committed to the Crown Court for sentencing under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.6 rather than s.4 did not have a legitimate expectation that a maximum six-month sentence of imprisonment would be imposed. His committal was for sentencing of one offence and trial for a related offence, both being either way offences, and the Crown Court’s powers could not be limited by anything said or done by the magistrates.
SC (Lord Neuberger (President), Lord Mance JSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Hughes JSC, Lord Toulson JSC )
31 July 2013
In order to give effect to the expression “causes … death … by driving”, an unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driver charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3ZB had to be shown to have done something other than simply putting his vehicle on the road so that it was there to be struck. Some kind of fault in the manner of his driving was a necessary element of the offence.