CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Sir Nicholas Blake)
23 June 2020
The court gave guidance on issues arising in criminal investigations and proceedings relating to the retention, inspection, copying, disclosure and deletion of digital records held on electronic devices such as mobiles phones by prosecution witnesses, including complainants.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ)
28 March 2019
A Practice Direction was issued amending Practice Direction (CA (Crim Div): Criminal Proceedings: General Matters)  EWCA Crim 1567. New sections were inserted or amendments were made to paragraphs concerning the overriding objective, trials in absence, expert evidence, identification for the court of issues in the case, trial adjournment in magistrates’ courts, trial adjournment in the Crown Court, impact statements for businesses, investigation orders and warrants in the Crown Court, referral of cases in the Crown Court from the resident judges to the presiding judges, allocation of business within the Crown Court and listing of hearings other than trials.
QBD (Admin) (Freedman J)
28 January 2019
The General Pharmaceutical Council’s Fitness to Practice Committee had been entitled to remove a locum from the register of pharmacists where it had used its expertise and experience to form the view that there was a risk that he would repeat behaviour that had led him to commit serious sexual offences and where he had shown little insight into his conduct.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Carr J, Judge Picton)
21 December 2018
The conviction of a vulnerable adult with a severe learning disability for the offence of sexual activity by a care worker with a person with a mental disability was unsafe, and was accordingly quashed, where inadequate consideration had been given to his learning disability in the course of the trial. Fresh psychological evidence demonstrated that he would have had difficulty in dealing with leading questions asked in cross-examination, and that might have left the jury with a false impression.
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Phillips J, Sir John Saunders)
1 November 2018
A judge’s decision to stay a prosecution as an abuse of process on the basis of a failure by the prosecution to properly pursue a line of enquiry when investigating allegations of sexual assault was wrong in principle and did not constitute a reasonable exercise of his discretion.
QBD (Admin) (Choudhury J)
4 April 2018
The court allowed Romania’s appeal against the grant of bail to a requested person who had been convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for sexual offences against an 11-year-old girl whilst working as her dance teacher. The court was satisfied that there were substantial grounds to believe that the requested person would fail to surrender at the extradition hearing.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Rafferty LJ, Treacy LJ, Sweeney J, Goss J)
6 April 2017
In appeals against the sentences imposed on two offenders, aged 101 and 96 respectively, in respect of historical sexual offences the Court of Appeal considered the issue of the appropriate allowance to be made for extreme old age in the sentencing process.
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, Spencer J, Dingemans J)
29 September 2016
A sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment imposed on a teacher following his conviction for six counts of engaging in sexual activity while in a position of trust was not excessive where he had groomed a 16-year old pupil and, on six separate occasions, engineered time alone with her in a classroom. Although some of the lasting harm suffered by the complainant might have been attributable to the full consensual relationship which developed after she left school, that relationship arose directly from the teacher’s serious criminality while she was in his care at school.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Treacy LJ, McGowan LJ, Judge Rook QC)
12 September 2016
The Court of Appeal gave additional guidance on the principles to be applied when offenders were sentenced for historic sexual offences.
QBD (Admin) (William Davis J)
17 June 2016
The Independent Monitor’s decision to approve the disclosure by the police on an enhanced criminal records certificate of information about an individual’s acquittal for sexual offences was unreasonable as the decision had been unsupported by the evidence at the trial for the alleged offences and the judge’s summing up.