Criminal Practice - 1999

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 119 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Kok -v- The Netherlands 43149/98; [2000] ECHR 706
1999 ECHR	Human Rights, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	Following a police raid leading to the discovery of a cache of arms, the police took a statement from an anonymous witness as to the delivery of the arms to the house (though the precise date of delivery was withheld). The investigating judge heard evidence satisfying her that the witness's desire for anonymity was based on well-founded fear. She heard and saw the witness's evidence direct, and then decided which answers could be relayed, with voice distortion, to the prosecutor and the applicant's counsel who were in another room. Defence counsel were able to submit questions to the witness. The applicant complained inter alia that the withholding of the precise date made it impossible to show an alibi. The Strasbourg Court was satisfied with the procedures. It was satisfied that, in contrast with Van Mechelen, the evidence was not based to a decisive extent on the anonymous witness. Held. "In the Court's view, in assessing whether the procedures involved in the questioning of the anonymous witness were sufficient to counterbalance the difficulties caused to the defence due weight must be given to the above conclusion that the anonymous testimony was not in any respect decisive for the conviction of the applicant. The defence was thus handicapped to a much lesser degree."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson [1999] 3 All ER 498; [2000] 1 Cr.App.R 141
1999 Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant was convicted of murder and her application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed. She later asked that her case be referred to the court of appeal on the ground of diminished responsibility, a ground not put forward earlier but now supported by a psychiatric report. In due course her case was transferred to the CCRC. Under section 9 it was not permitted to refer a case to the court of appeal unless it considered there was a "real possibility" that the conviction would not be upheld. The CCRC declined to refer on the ground that there was no likelihood of the court of appeal receiving the new evidence. The applicant sought judicial review. Held: The CCRC had rightly sought to anticipate whether there was a real possibility of the court of appeal receiving the new evidence, that there were no grounds for impugning its decision and that the application would therefore be dismissed. Lord Bingham referred to previous cases in which fresh evidence from the applicant himself had been considered. Lord Bingham CJ said: "Thus the Commission's power to refer under section 9 is exercisable only if it considers that if the reference were made there would be a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld by the Court of Appeal. The exercise of the power to refer accordingly depends on the judgment of the Commission, and it cannot be too strongly emphasised that this is a judgment entrusted to the Commission and to no one else. Save in exceptional circumstances, the judgment must be made by the Commission, in a conviction case, on the ground of an argument or evidence which has not been before the court before, whether at trial, on application for leave to appeal or on appeal. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the Commission cannot therefore invite the court to review issues or evidence upon which there has already been a ruling. Resort to the Commission must ordinarily follow and not precede resort to the Court of Appeal." and "The "real possibility" test prescribed in section 13(1)(a) of the 1995 Act as the threshold which the Commission must judge to be crossed before a conviction may be referred to the Court of Appeal is imprecise but plainly denotes a contingency which, in the Commission's judgment, is more than an outside chance or a bare possibility but which may be less than a probability or a likelihood or a racing certainty. The Commission must judge that there is at least a reasonable prospect of a conviction, if referred, not being upheld. The threshold test is carefully chosen: if the Commission were almost automatically to refer all but the most obviously threadbare cases, its function would be mechanical rather than judgmental and the Court of Appeal would be burdened with a mass of hopeless appeals; if, on the other hand, the Commission were not to refer any case unless it judged the applicant's prospect of success on appeal to be assured, the cases of some deserving applicants would not be referred to the Court and the beneficial object which the Commission was established to achieve would be to that extent defeated. The Commission is entrusted with the power and the duty to judge which cases cross the threshold and which do not."
	Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9

Regina -v- Docherty [1999] 1 Cr App R 274
1999 CACD Roch LJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was accused of a sexual assault. A witness referred to his having been in prison. The trial judge refused to discharge the jury, stating that the remark could well have been taken to mean that that the defendant was a dishonest person whose word could not be believed, rather than that he had been convicted of a sexual offence, which was not the inevitable inference to be drawn from the remark. Held. The judge had applied the wrong test. Roch LJ said: "In weighing up the danger of bias on the part of this jury arising from these answers, the judge should, in our judgment, have approached the issue on the basis of the more prejudicial meaning that could reasonably be placed on these answers rather than some lesser prejudicial interpretation."

Regina -v- Thomas Shanks [1999] EWHC Admin 21
13 Jan 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Admission of classified Ministry of Defence documents.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Central Criminal Court ex parte Orleander Johnson [1999] EWHC Admin 36
18 Jan 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Ibiloye, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Crown Prosecution Service (Horseferry Road Justices) [1999] EWHC Admin 42
20 Jan 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Preston Crown Court ex parte Carl Barraclough and Michael Leary [1999] EWHC Admin 46
21 Jan 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bennett
25 Jan 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	When a court considered whether to extend the custody time limits a court must not make an allowance in favour of the prosecution for difficulties caused by the victim's illness. Subsebtions 22(3)(a) and 22(3)(b) had both to be fulfilled.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)

R -v- Booth; R -v- Molland; R -v- Wood
27 Jan 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Where the Court of Appeal declared a trial on indictment to have been a nullity, and ordered at the same time that there should be no re-trial, that original conviction had been annulled and set aside, not quashed. Further prosecutions would be resisted.

Regina -v- Stoke on Trent Magistrates' Court ex parte Harry Wilson [1999] EWHC Admin 88; [1999] EWHC Admin 139
1 Feb 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	The defendant sought renewed leave to apply for judicial review. He complained of the reading of statements at his committal where he had requested that the witness attend to give evidence. Held: The defendant had been given full opportunity to attend a previous hearing which had heard the full allegations, and even if leave were granted the application would be highly unlikely to succeed.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Aspinall [1999] EWCA Crim 185
4 Feb 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Crime
	A known schizophrenic even though certified probably fit for interview should nevertheless have present with him in interview at a police station an appropriate adult. Assessment of such an individual is beyond the skills of a custody sergeant.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Mullen (Nicholas Robert Neil) [2000] QB 520; [1999] EWCA Crim 278; [1999] 2 CAR 143
4 Feb 1999 CACD Rose LJ	Natural Justice, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. It was alleged that he was a member of the IRA. In 1990, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Some years later the circumstances in which he was be deported to England came to light. Held: The conviction was quashed: "Furthermore, although abuse of process, unlike jurisdiction, is a matter calling for the exercise of discretion, it seems to us that Bennett-type abuse, where it would be offensive to justice and propriety to try the defendant at all, is different both from the type of abuse which renders a fair trial impossible and from all other cases where an exercise of judicial discretion is called for. It arises not from the relationship between the prosecution and the defendant, but from the relationship between the prosecution and the Court. It arises from the Court's need to exercise control over executive involvement in the whole prosecution process, not limited to the trial itself." Rose LJ: "This court recognises the immense degree of public revulsion which has, quite properly, attached to the activities of those who have assisted and furthered the violent operations of the I.R.A. and other terrorist organisations. In the discretionary exercise, great weight must therefore be attached to the nature of the offence involved in this case. Against that, however, the conduct of the security services and police in procuring the unlawful deportation of the defendant in the manner which has been described represents, in the view of this court, a blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law with regard to the production of a defendant for prosecution in the English courts. The need to discourage such conduct on the part of those who are responsible for criminal prosecutions is a matter of public policy to which, as appears from R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 and R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, very considerable weight must be attached."
	Criminal Appeal Act 1995 2
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Cox; Regina -v- Thomas
4 Feb 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Where a defendant had been allowed to appeal on some grounds, but refused on others, the appellant could only renew the refused grounds with leave of the Appeal Court, and after giving notice of his intention to the court and to the Crown.

Regina -v- Wiggan [1999] EWCA Crim 274
4 Feb 1999 CACD Auld LJ, Forbes, David Steel JJ	Criminal Practice
	The defendant appealed against her conviction for violent disorder saying that the judge's interventions had been inappropriate and partisan. Held: The appeal failed. A judge's right to ask questions of a witness after re-examination must be limited to attempts to clarify matters raised already. He must not allow the impression to arise that he is cross-examining the witness. The judge here had crossed the line, but the other evidence was overwhelming and the conviction was not unsafe.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Belmarsh Magistrates' Court ex parte Fiona Watts [1999] EWHC Admin 112; [1999] 2 CAR 188
8 Feb 1999 Admn Buxton LJ, Collins J	Criminal Practice, Magistrates	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences. Held: The magistrate was vested with jurisdiction to consider whether summonses issued by a convicted defendant amounted to an abuse of process, and "We accordingly have no doubt that the summonses are an abuse of the criminal process. "
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Stratford Justices ex parte Colin Imbert [1999] EWHC Admin 118
8 Feb 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Bowden (BT) [1999] EWCA Crim 331; [1999] 1 WLR 823; [1999] 4 All ER 43; (1999) 163 JP 337; [1999] 2 Cr App R 176
10 Feb 1999 CACD Lord Bingham CJ, Kennedy, Jackson JJ	Criminal Practice, Crime, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald's restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong enough. At the trial, the defendant adduced the terms of that advice. The questions which he had declined to answer included enquiries into an apparent sudden increase in wealth, without obvious source, shortly after the robbery, and about his having taken a holiday immediately afterwards in Gran Canaria where he had been photographed in celebratory pose outside the local branch of McDonalds. At his trial he gave detailed explanations both for his spending and for wishing to photograph the McDonalds restaurant. Accordingly the question arose whether an adverse section 34 inference was open to the jury or not. Held: A defendant who claimed only not to have answered police questions on legal advice, did not waive legal privilege protection until he also asked that no inferences be drawn from his silence. That request operated as a waiver of that privilege, and questions could then also be asked to establish the advice he had been given by his solicitor and its context. "The object of these sections was to weaken the protection which criminal defendants had previously enjoyed against the drawing of inferences adverse to them from such failures and refusals in the circumstances specified. Proper effect must of course be given to these provisions. But since they restrict rights recognised at common law as appropriate to protect defendants against the risk of injustice, they should not be construed more widely than the statutory language requires. There is nothing in any of these sections to suggest that Parliament intended in any way to modify the existing law on legal professional privilege."
	Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35 36 37
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court ex parte Caroline Asapokhai ex parte Patricia Mason and ex parte Adesoji Ibiloye [1999] EWHC Admin 147
16 Feb 1999 Admn	Magistrates, Evidence, Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Jones (Douglas)
17 Feb 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	In manslaughter cases a judge is permitted to make some enquiries of juries as to the basis of their verdict in order to establish the factual basis found, and thus to sentence in accordance with such findings.

Preston Borough Council -v- McGrath
18 Feb 1999 ChD Burton J	Criminal Practice, Local Government, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant had been interviewed by the police investigating allegations of corruption. The Council in its civil claim, exhibited documents received from the police, and obtained in that investigation. The receipt of documents by a defendant under an implied undertaking not to use them for another purpose, implied no similar cross undertaking on behalf of the prosecution. The purpose of the undertaking is not served by such an implication.

Regina -v- Weekes [1999] EWCA Crim 453
18 Feb 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Crime	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that at the time of the offence he suffered a paranoid psychotic illness which would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. He was not regarded as insane as defined by the M’Naghton rules. He had been advised that he might have a defence to the murder charge as such, but had instructed his defence team not to advance it. Held: It is for the defence to establish, if pleaded, a defence of diminished responsibility. "There have been a number of cases in which this court has been faced by the difficulties which arise when a defendant chooses not to call evidence at trial and then wishes to call that evidence on appeal. In general applications to that effect are rejected on the basis that a defendant must put forward his whole case at trial and that it is not in the interests of justice to permit him to put forward his case with different evidence before different tribunals. If in a particular case that results in a conviction which he could have avoided by leading the appropriate evidence at the appropriate time then that is the price he must pay for having chosen not to lead that evidence at the appropriate time. " The Court has the power to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for one of murder, where the defendant's own mental condition had led him to gainsay counsel's advice, and to refuse to allow a plea of diminished responsibility to be put forward.
	Homicide Act 1957 2 - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- McFarlane [1999] EWCA Crim 496
23 Feb 1999 CACD	Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
	A solicitor may properly delay taking instructions from his criminal client until he has seen the details of the prosecution case, but must take care not to become embroiled in attempt to procrastinate the choice of defence, and must not mislead counsel.
	[ Bailii ]

Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- Harris (Stephen David)
24 Feb 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	Cash seized under drug trafficking laws but not ordered for forfeiture could not be ordered for release to fund the defence of the associated criminal charges. Magistrates courts are creatures of statute. Powers could not be implied where none stated.

In Re Andrews [1999] 1 WLR 1236; QBCOF 98/0522/4
25 Feb 1999 CA Hirst LJ, Aldous LJ, Ward LJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held that such costs did not include the costs of the receivership (amounting to some £10,000). The receiver sought to retain those costs out of the assets under her control. The defendant applied for an order that they be paid by the prosecutor, as costs of the receivership proceedings. That application failed. The court applied the established common law practice that the costs of a court-appointed receiver are paid out of the realised assets. A receiver properly appointed in criminal proceedings was entitled to deduct his costs from the sums obtained even if the court later discharges the order without any finding of guilt. There is no power to order prosecutor to pay the costs. Remuneration and expenses (as such) could be charged only against receivership assets, and could not (under guise of litigation costs) be charged to anyone else on the principle in Aiden Shipping.
	Criminal Justice Act 1988 89
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Stratford Justices, ex parte Imbert
25 Feb 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	It was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights for a prosecutor to refuse to disclose witness statements in a summary case so that he could know in detail the case against him. The margin of appreciation given to signatory states allowed that.
	European Convention on Human Rights Art 6

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Council of London Borough of Merton [1999] EWHC Admin 179
1 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Application for judicial review of CPS decision not to prosecute.
	Link[s] omitted

Indravani Ramjattan -v- The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [1999] UKPC 8
4 Mar 1999 PC	Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
	(Trinidad and Tobago) The judicial committee could hear an appeal despite earlier rejection of leave to appeal, provided the new grounds were sufficiently distinctive from the first application and merited leave.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Crown Court At Snaresbrook ex parte Impact Management Limited [1999] EWHC Admin 195
4 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Harrow Crown Court ex parte Gribler [1999] EWHC Admin 204
5 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	The applicant lived in an L-shaped cul-de-sac serving apartment blocks. The applicant owned a 35 foot Winnebago. There was aggravation between the applicant and the neighbours about this vehicle. It was said that the applicant collided with a stationary Citreon. The defence said the accident was caused by Mr Gold driving in to the applicant’s Winnebago. Mr Gold said was in fact in his house. When he came down the applicant was abusive. The appellant sought a review of a refusal of the crown court to state a case for the High Court. Held: For a case to be stated there has to be a point of law. The issue here was which side’s evidence was to be believed. Application refused.
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Plymouth Crown Court ex parte Weston [1999] EWHC Admin 207
5 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Application for judicial review - refusal to extend custody time limit.
	Link[s] omitted

Hm Attorney General -v- Gleaves [1999] EWHC Admin 216
9 Mar 1999 Admn	Litigation Practice, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendant had been made subject to a civil proceedings order but had begun criminal prosecutions from his prison cell against journalists. Held: The civil restraint order did not prevent the defendant commencing criminal actions. A criminal proceedings restraint order was made.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 24(7) - Supreme Court Act 1981 42
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Toney
10 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Counsel advising on an appeal against sentence, should make full allowance for the possibility that lodging an appeal may act to extend the time served, and delay the release from prison by disapplying advantageous early release provisions.
	Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A

Bussey -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [1998] Crim LR
17 Mar 1999 CA	Road Traffic, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where there remained a difference between the defence and the prosecution as to the facts on which a sentence was to be based a crown court hearing an appeal against sentence was able to sentence on a basis of different facts then found by the magistrates.

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Richard Moran, Martin O'Brien and Kevin Oates [1999] EWHC Admin 234
17 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	The complainants objected to the court allowing the prosecution to withdraw a case on committal on the basis that the prosecution would now inevitably prefer a voluntary bill of indictment giving them less protection.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee [1999] EWHC Admin 242; [1999] Cr App R 304
18 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	Application for judicial review of CPS decision on disclosure of evidence before committal. Held: The court recognised an ongoing duty of disclosure from the time of arrest. At the stage before committal, there are continuing obligations on the prosecutor to make such disclosure as justice and fairness may require in the particular circumstances of the case, that is, where it could reasonably be expected to assist the defence when applying for bail. This will ensure that the defendant enjoys "equality of arms" with the prosecution.
	Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Smith, Beaney [1999] EWCA Crim 750
18 Mar 1999 CACD Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Butterfield And His Honour Judge Grigson	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendants appealed their convictions, saying that the guilty pleas had been obtained by pressure. On the day of the trial, there had been conversations between their representatives, in the course of which inconsistent admissions were made. Counsel were 'professionally embarassed' and they and the solicitors withdrew. The judge refused an adjournment. The trial began, but at lunch the clients re-instructed their solicitors and pleaded guilty. Both defendants had difficulty reading. Held: Applying Turner "Here, circumstances combined to deprive these appellants of that freedom of choice."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Toney
18 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Counsel advising on an appeal against sentence should make full allowance for the possibility that an appeal may act to extend the time served and delay the release from prison by disapplying greater early release provisions.
	Criminal Justice Act 1990 34A

Regina -v- Lewes Crown Court ex parte Trevor Unwin [1999] EWHC Admin 249
22 Mar 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Duckenfield and Another; Regina -v- South Yorkshire Police Authority and Another; Ex Parte Chief Constable of South Yorkshire et Al [1999] EWHC Admin 261; [1999] EWHC Admin 266; [1999] EWHC Admin 267
24 Mar 1999 Admn Laws LJ	Criminal Practice, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	Criminal Justice Act 1987 - Police Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Medway [1999] EWCA Crim 839; [2000] Crim LR 415
25 Mar 1999 CACD Mantell LJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The court considered a complaint as to the prosecution's failure to preserve evidence: "We recognise that in cases where evidence has been tampered with, lost or destroyed it may well be that a defendant will be disadvantaged. It does not necessarily follow that in such a case the defendant cannot have a fair trial or that it would be unfair for him to be tried."
	Link[s] omitted

Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn) [1999] EWCA Crim 862
26 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Police	1 Cites 1 Citers
	There was an obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples in respect of persons who were acquitted. Nevertheless, if such material was unlawfully retained, it could be used for the purpose of investigating another offence, and the evidence could be used in a subsequent trial unless it was excluded at the judge's discretion.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Kamar [1999] EWCA Crim 930
31 Mar 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where counsel had genuinely omitted to request a good character direction from the judge, and the defendant was entitled to one and did not receive it, the defendant should be acquitted on appeal. It will rarely be possible for a court of appeal to say with safety that the direction would not have made a difference.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Duckenfield; Murray; Regina -v- South Yorkshire Police Authority And; Ann Adlington (on Behalf of Hillsborough Family Support Group); Duckenfield; Murray and Hillsborough Police Authority etc [1999] EWHC Admin 286; [2000] 1 WLR 55
31 Mar 1999 Admn Laws LJ	Police, Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	Private prosecutions had been brought against two retired police officers, D and M, in relation to the Hillsborough disaster; and the Director had refused a request by the officers to take over and discontinue those prosecutions, stating that his policy was to take over a prosecution to discontinue it only where there was clearly no case to answer, or the public interest factors tending against the prosecution clearly outweighed those factors tending in favour, or the prosecution was likely to damage the interests of justice. The police officers sought judicial review of that decision. Held: The court rejected a challenge by both officers to the lawfulness of the Director's policy; he had full power to refuse to take over a private prosecution and to discontinue it. The criteria are not the same as for the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It was not wrong for a Police authority to carry out the acts it saw as necessary to maintain and efficient force. "The argument here, at least as originally put forward in M.'s skeleton argument, was that because of his view (referred to in the reasons letter) that private prosecutors are not bound to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report, 1993-94) when deciding whether to institute proceedings, the D.P.P. has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the principles in the Code are irrelevant to his discretion under sections 6(2) and 23(3). But the D.P.P. has nowhere stated that he regards the Code as systematically or generally irrelevant to his power to discontinue. Indeed, as I shall show, there are some aspects of the Code which are reflected in his approach to the question, how his policy should be applied in this case. In truth, however, it could not be right for the D.P.P. to apply across the board the same tests, in particular the 'reasonable prospect of conviction' test referred to in the correspondence, in considering whether to take over and discontinue a private prosecution as the Code enjoins Crown Prosecutors to follow in deciding whether to institute or proceed with a prosecution themselves; the consequence would be that the D.P.P. would stop a private prosecution merely on the ground that the case is not one which he would himself proceed with. But that, in my judgment, would amount to an emasculation of section 6(1) and itself be an unlawful policy; and in fairness Mr. Harrison made it clear that he did not submit so much. The very premise of section 6(1) must be that some cases will go to trial which the D.P.P. himself chooses not to prosecute."
	Police Act 1996 - Criminal Justice Act 1987
	Link[s] omitted

Re N [1999] EWHC Admin 287
31 Mar 1999 Admn Latham J	Criminal Practice
	Application re confiscation order.
	Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986
	Link[s] omitted

T & V -v- The United Kingdom (1999) 30 EHRR 12
8 Apr 1999 ECHR	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The trial of two ten year olds in a public forum, under intense public scrutiny, made the trial unfair: "it is essential that a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps are taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings". A punitive measure should be set by the courts, and not by a political process, and a long sentence for a child must allow for later developments.

Regina -v- Warwick Crown Court ex parte Ball [1999] EWHC Admin 339
21 Apr 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Attorney-General's Reference (No 95 of 1998) Regina -v- Highfield
21 Apr 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	The Court of Appeal, when considering whether a sentence had been too lenient, could only act on the same basis as decided by the judge at first instance. It was improper to ask the court to second guess the first instance findings.

Regina -v- Burrows [1999] EWCA Crim 1113; [2000] Crim LR 48
23 Apr 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	One defendant had been found when searched to have a plastic egg-shaped capsule with crack cocaine inside. He now appealed the direction given to the jury as to the evidence against him given by a co-defendant. Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the standard Joint Studies Board direction on the evidence of co-accused should not be given where the defendants ran a cut throat defence: "Any warning would have had to apply to both defendants, and would have meant directing the jury to treat each defendant's evidence with caution, just because it inculpated the other. That might have led to a complaint that the jury had not been allowed to approach the case with open minds. It was impossible in this case to give the normal warning."
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex P Lee
26 Apr 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	A prosecutor should consider disclosure of matters proper for disclosure before committal, though not beyond old obligations. This might include convictions of prosecution witnesses, matters suggesting abuse of process, or against committal.
	Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Regina -v- Snaresbroook Crown Court, Ex P Input Management Ltd
29 Apr 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	A court acting as an appeal court from the magistrates had a duty to give reasons when announcing its verdict in order to allow the applicant properly judge the criminality found and to assess the chances of an appeal.

Regina -v- Maidstone Crown Court, ex Parte Harrow London Borough Council [1999] EWHC Admin 385; [2000] QB 719
30 Apr 1999 QBD Rose LJ, Bell J	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The High Court may review, on an application made by a properly interested party, a decision made by a Crown Court under the Act. Although this related to a trial on indictment, the Crown Court judge had made an order without jurisdiction.
	Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Ryan
30 Apr 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Plea bargaining is always an inappropriate exercise. A judge having indicated a certain length of sentence, and the defendant's plea being dependent upon that, it was wrong to go back upon that, and the sentence would be reduced to satisfy the promise.

Regina -v- Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Peter George Trevor Brine [1999] EWHC Admin 401
5 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Peter George Trevor Brine [1999] EWHC Admin 402
5 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Lewes Crown Court and Chief Constable of Sussex Police ex parte Nigel Weller and Co [1999] EWHC Admin 424
12 May 1999 Admn Kennedy LJ VP, Mitchell J	Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Police	Casemap 1 Cites
	The applicant sought judicial review of a decision to grant a search warrant in respect of his offices, saying that the material covered was protected by legal privilege. The warrant had been unavailable under section 8 because of the privilege, and so the police had applied to a circuit judge under section 9. Held: The order should be quashed. The judge should have given reasons for his order. "it is not always easy for a hard-pressed circuit judge to remember to give reasons when he has no more assistance than can be provided by a police officer on his own making what the officer no doubt regards as a formal ex parte application, but the reality is that - (1) the person or persons against whom an order has been made are entitled to know why it is made: (2) the requirement to give reasons should help to ensure that a judge does, as he must, address each of the statutory requirements before making the order, and - (3) if it is necessary to review an order in this court reasons will be of great assistance. We will know why the judge decided as he did. " Neither the police nor the court below appeared to have given thought to the need to resptrict the scope of the search order, and thus to bypass the protection given by the Act to special material.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8 9
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Nottingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Paul Davidson [1999] EWHC Admin 426
12 May 1999 Admn	Magistrates, Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Beaney and King [1999] EWHC Admin 432
14 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Failure of Prosecution to disclose material.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Leeds Crown Court ex parte Scarfe [1999] EWHC Admin 433
14 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan [1999] EWHC Admin 454
18 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the extension.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(a) 22(3)(b)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson [1999] EWHC Admin 452; [2000] 1 Cr App R 141
18 May 1999 Admn Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Ognall J	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant sought judicial review of the decision not to refer her case back to the court of appeal. She had been convicted of the murder of her hsuband's new partner. She said it had been her husband. Held: The court set out the approach to be taken when a defendant raises the defence of diminished resonsibility for the first time on appeal. Lord Bingham of Cornhill summarised the protection given by the 1968 Act: "It is essential to the health and proper functioning of a modern democracy that the citizen accused of crime should be fairly tried and adequately protected against the risk and consequences of wrongful conviction. To this end, police operations to investigate crime and interrogate suspects are closely controlled by statutes, codes and rules; the conduct of prosecutions is entrusted to an independent, professional prosecuting authority; and legal aid is made available to fund all but the very well-to-do to defend themselves in serious cases. The main protection of the citizen accused of serious crime is, however, to be found in our system of trial by judge and jury. This system is so familiar as to require no description. But we draw attention to two characteristic features of jury trial germane to this application. First, the procedure is adversarial. There is no duty on the trial judge, as in an inquisitorial proceeding, to investigate what defences might, if pursued, be open to a defendant, nor to interrogate or call witnesses. It is the function of the judge to direct the jury on the relevant law and to summarise (perhaps very briefly) the evidence, and to define the issues raised by the prosecution and the defence, including any possible defence disclosed by the evidence even if not relied on by the defendant. The judge need not, and should not, go further. Secondly, the decision on the defendant's guilt is made following a trial, continuous from day to day, by a jury assembled only for that trial, with no responsibility for the proceedings before the trial begins or after it ends. Thus the decision-making tribunal must reach its decision on the argument and evidence deployed before it at a final, once-for-all, trial. A defendant may quite properly put forward defences cumulatively and alternatively at a single trial, but not serially at different trials."
	Criminal Appeal Act 1968 2
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Smith, WD [1999] EWCA Crim 1430; [1999] EWCA Crim 1452
18 May 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has the discretion to adjourn an appeal, once it becomes clear that the point at issue was a point of law, which was itself the subject of a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
	Criminal Appeal Act 1995 9
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Dixon (Leon)
19 May 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	The Court of Appeal has discretion of its own motion to grant leave to appeal out of time against conviction even though this has been previously deemed refused because his failure to issue notice of appeal within the 14 days allowed.

Re N [1999] EWCA Civ 1452; [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 257
20 May 1999 CA	Criminal Practice, Police, Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant was a victim of a rape. She alleged that the police had mishandled the prosecution, resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the defendant, which in turn, she said exacerbated her own post traumatic stress disorder. Held: "In my judgment an attempt to formulate a duty of care in this way is wholly misconceived. If a duty of care exists at all it is a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering injury, loss or damage of the type in question, in this case psychiatric injury. " Clarke LJ: It was at least arguable that where a forensic medical examiner carries out an examination and discovers that the person being examined has a serious condition which needs immediate treatment, a duty is owed to the examinee to disclose those facts.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Jones (Stephen)
20 May 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Cases involving arson with intent to endanger life should be tried by a full time judge, and not by part time recorders. They are necessarily serious cases. In this case the recorder had wrongly admitted evidence and the appeal must be allowed.

Ex Parte News Group Newspapers Ltd
21 May 1999 CACD	Media, Criminal Practice
	Counsel for the prosecution had a duty to consider and advise the court in respect of applications regarding non-reporting orders, in particular as to whether excess adverse publicity might operate to make a trial unfair and a conviction unsafe.
	Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Regina -v- Hereford Crown Court ex parte Jason Gregory [1999] EWHC Admin 486
24 May 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Application for judicial review of extension of custody time limit.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Smith (Patrick Joseph); Regina -v- Taylor (James); Regina -v- Nicholson (John); Regina -v- Johnson (Henry) [1999] EWCA Crim 1525; [2000] 1 All ER 263; [1999] 2 Cr App R 238
25 May 1999 CACD Mantell LJ, Blofield, Fabyan Evans JJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap
	Where a court had wrongly rejected a submission of no case to answer, a subsequent admission of guilt by the defendant under cross-examination, was not sufficient to deny an appeal. Such an appeal is judged as at the time the submission is made. The conviction would still be unsafe because the defendant was entitled to be acquitted at the close of the prosecution case.
	Link[s] omitted

Charles, Steve Carter and Leroy Carter -v- The State [2000] 1 WLR 384; [1999] UKPC 24; (Appeal No 33 of 1998)
26 May 1999 PC	Criminal Practice, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Citers
	(Trinidad and Tobago) A third trial for murder, with a capital sentence to follow, after a long delay, and when one verdict had been set aside, and a second jury undecided, became an abuse of process. This is usually a judge's discretion and should be set aside only rarely.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chelmsford Crown Court, Ex Parte Mills
31 May 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	Where an application to extend custody time limits is opposed on the basis of prosecution delay, the parties should provide for the court an agreed chronology of events, and the judge should also give his reasons for granting the extension.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(b)

Regina -v- Sharif
8 Jun 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	A judge's duty to assist a duty was a continuing one, and was not curtailed by their retirement. After such retirement, he was not limited in his duty or capacity to responding to requests for assistance. This may mean that he would take the initiative to assist.

Regina -v- Bow Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Christopher Finch [1999] EWHC Admin 527
9 Jun 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- In the Matter of an Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Hayrettin Bora [1998] EWCA Crim 3526; [1999] EWHC Admin 545
14 Jun 1999 Admn Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Latham His Honour Judge Myerson	Criminal Practice, Judicial Review
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Dixon (Leon)
16 Jun 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	The Court of Appeal has discretion of its own motion to grant leave to appeal out of time against conviction even though this has been previously deemed refused because his failure to issue notice of appeal within the 14 days allowed.

Regina -v- Leeds Crown Court ex parte Whitehead [1999] EWHC Admin 557
17 Jun 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Where a defendant had been committed for trial in custody, and the trial had been begun only one day within the custody time limits, but then, three months into the trial, the trial had to be abandoned, the jury discharged and a re-trial ordered, an application to apply the time limits was refused. The custody time limits applied explicitly only to the preliminary stages of the process before the jury was sworn.
	Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 22(3)(b)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Northallerton Magistrates, ex parte Dove [1999] EWHC Admin 499; [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136
17 Jun 1999 QBD Lord Bingham CJ	Criminal Practice, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant having provided sufficient evidence of his means, a court awarding prosecution costs, where the other penalty is a fine, should not allow these to be completely disproportionate to the fine. Where a defendant failed to provide sufficient information the justices were entitled to draw reasonable inferences about what they might be. Costs orders are not to be used to punish the defendant for exercising his right to defend himself. Lord Bingham C : "While there is no requirement that any sum ordered by justices to be paid to a prosecutor by way of costs should stand in any arithmetical relationship to any fine imposed, the costs ordered to be paid should not in the ordinary way be grossly disproportionate to the fine".
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 18
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Barnet Youth Court ex parte Ayub Barkan [1999] EWHC Admin 555
17 Jun 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Challenge to magistrates' decision to re-open Newton hearing.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- South Ribble Justices ex parte Bolton [1999] EWHC Admin 570
18 Jun 1999 Admn Roch LJ, Collins J	Criminal Practice, Magistrates
	Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 17A
	Link[s] omitted

Fryer, and 'G' and 'Y' -v- Director of Public Prosecution [1999] EWHC Admin 580
22 Jun 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Fricker [1999] EWCA Crim 1773
24 Jun 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was charged with attempting to handle stolen tyres, a juror, with highly specialised knowledge of tyre manufacturing asked, after retirement, and was allowed by the judge to take this knowledge into account. Held: Where a juror was known to have brought to the trial his own specialised knowledge in a way which may have affected the decision of the jury, a re-trial should be ordered. Such knowledge in a juror was not the same as the knowledge of a magistrate, and gave no opportunity to defence counsel to test the validity of it.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Salisbury Magistrates Court ex parte Douglas Gray [1999] EWHC Admin 609
28 Jun 1999 Admn	Magistrates, Criminal Practice
	Request for judicial review of decision of magistrates to commit him to crown court for sentence.
	Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 38
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Luton Justices ex parte Judah Abecasis [1999] EWHC Admin 613
29 Jun 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice, Magistrates
	Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1) - Magistrates Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Drug Trafficking Cash) Rules 1991 (1991 No 1923)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- RAF General Court-Martial and Another, ex parte Wright
1 Jul 1999 QBD	Natural Justice, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice
	It is not an abuse of process for the same officer to make recommendations to higher officers on whether charges should be referred to higher authority or dismissed, and also eventually to make the actual decision on whether a prosecution should proceed. The dual role of such officers did not offend against natural justice.

Regina -v- Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court ex parte Polat Tulgar (Formerly Known As Mason) [1999] EWHC Admin 645
7 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- West London Magistrates' Court ex parte Waite [1999] EWHC Admin 650
7 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	On the first day of the trial, the complainant was allowed to lead on matters prior to the date of the first allegation. At the adjourned hearing, with a different court clerk, the defendant was not allowed to cross examine the complainant on the same matters. The justices failed to state a case, and so the application was by way of judicial review. Held: The magistrates should have allowed cross examination. The conviction was quashed.
	Protection from Harassment Act 1997
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Teeside Justices ex parte Crown Prosecution Service [1999] EWHC Admin 657
8 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Bradford Crown Court ex parte Zaman [1999] EWHC Admin 658
9 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Judicial review of decision extending custody time limits.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Miller
9 Jul 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	In cases of allegations of sexual abuse prosecuted after many years, the effect of the delay in prejudicing the defendant was something which varied very much from case to case, and although the trial judge should consider a direction very carefully, its precise form remained a matter within his discretion.

Regina -v- Milliner
14 Jul 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Where there had been a long delay since sexual abuse offences, the judge should follow the guidance to be given by the Judicial Studies Board when deciding to what extent within the facts of the case it was appropriate to warn the jury on the dangers arising from such delay. Each case must be looked at in its own light, and too prescriptive an approach should be avoided.

Regina -v- Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Dickinson [1999] EWHC Admin 692
15 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Bradford Crown Court ex parte Crossling [1999] EWHC Admin 704
19 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	When a judge makes a fundamental mistake as to the application of the rules for extending custody time limits, the correct approach is to make a renewed application to him, or, in his absence, to the senior judge on the circuit. It was not correct to seek judicial review of the order made. Such an application was not the same application, and another judge could, if necessary, make the order required.
	Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(3)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- South Western Magistrates' Court ex parte Claire Kennedy [1999] EWHC Admin 718
20 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Salisbury Magistrate's Court, ex parte Gray
21 Jul 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	A probation officer, acting in the preparation of a pre-sentence report, was acting as part of the investigating process, and where he came upon information contradicting a psychiatric report to be given to the court, he was free to refer to that information in his own report. He was not limited to items listed in the National Standards for such reports, and a case was properly remitted to the Crown Court for sentence on the basis of his report.

Antonio Leeson -v- Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 737
26 Jul 1999 Admn Newman J	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal was dismissed: "If the failure to adduce that evidence on the part of the prosecution is simply an oversight and by that I emphasise an oversight in that the prosecution has not adduced evidence of that which they are in a position to call that day, either by producing the document or calling the witnesses, in my judgment particular considerations do apply. It would not, in my judgment, be consonant with the proper and due administration of justice in this particular field of criminal prosecution for there to be acquittals simply by reason of oversight in the sense that I have described. Justice will not be done if defendants are acquitted purely because of an oversight which was capable of being corrected there and then. The argument takes the canons of procedure to unjustified limits. It must always be a matter for the magistrates to consider anxiously. In any particular case, they will have to consider whether or not to exercise their discretion so as to permit the prosecution to fill the gap in their case."
	Link[s] omitted

In Re Sternberg Reed Taylor & Gill (A Firm) [1999] EWCA Crim 1870
26 Jul 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Legal Professions, Costs
	Negligence on the part of a solicitor was capable of falling within the range of 'unnecessary or improper act or omission' so as to leave him open to a wasted costs order. A clerk, having stood near the place where the jury assembled, discussed the case with the defendant. A re-trial was necessary, and could easily have been avoided.
	Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335) 3(c)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Fricker
28 Jul 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	Where a juror was known to have brought to the trial his own specialised knowledge in a way which may have affected the decision of the jury, a re-trial should be ordered. Such knowledge in a juror was not the same as the knowledge of a magistrate, and gave no opportunity to defence counsel to test the validity of it.

Regina -v- Manchester Crown Court ex parte H and D [1999] EWHC Admin 773
30 Jul 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice, Media
	Application to discharge order against naming defendants in murder case.
	Link[s] omitted

In Re P (Restraint Order) (Sale of Assets) [2000] 1 WLR 473
2 Aug 1999 CA	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	An interim receiver under the Act was primarily appointed to preserve the assets of the defendant to prevent dissipation, and not to maximise them so as to realise greater sums for the purposes of any eventual confiscation order. He was answerable first to the court, and the court should not withdraw its control to such an extent as to decline intervention unless he could be shown to be wrong.
	Drug Trafficking Act 1994 26

Regina -v- West London Youth Court, Ex P J
2 Aug 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice
	When absolutely necessary, it was permissible for a court to allow and depend upon double translation for a defendant. A court offered either double translation or a translator who felt 80 per cent adequate in the language of the defendant. A translator must be impartial (never the appropriate adult), and qualified and fluent. The standards required at interview were also required at trial. There must be a natural understanding between the accused and his interpreter, and the next and the court.

Practice Direction (Crime: Voluntary Bills)
5 Aug 1999 LCJ	Criminal Practice
	New procedures for judges considering an application for a voluntary bill of indictment. The rules provide for compliance with the acts and rules governing such bills, and detailed disclosure of charges refused by magistrates, of the evidence which brought the bill within the rules. It should be for exceptional considerations of justice not administrative convenience. Notice to the defendant was not required.
	Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 2(2)(b) - Indictments (Procedure) Rules 1971 (1971 No 2084)

Re: Howells (Solicitors) [1999] EWCA Crim 2171
5 Aug 1999 CACD	Legal Professions, Costs, Criminal Practice
	Appeal Under Section 3(c) of Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 Against a Wasted Costs Order
	Costs In Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 3(c)
	Link[s] omitted

In Re Harry Jagdev & Co (Wasted Costs Order) (No 2 of 1999)
12 Aug 1999 CA	Costs, Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
	A wasted costs order must specify the amount payable when it is made. It is not open to a judge to go back later and amend the order to correct the defect, and particularly not to do so by awarding a sum greater than the amount claimed. In this case in any event, the award had been at best borderline, the costs incurred had contributed to the swifter disposal of the case.
	Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A - Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Regina -v- Reid
17 Aug 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	No matter how strong should the case seem against a defendant, a judge must be scrupulous to sum up the case fairly. It was never appropriate to pose questions to the jury which suggested the answers required, and which favoured the prosecution case, and which indicated the judge's own personal views on the matter.

Regina -v- Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Headley [1999] EWHC Admin 803
19 Aug 1999 Admn	Criminal Practice
	Matters which would be normally relevant when a court considers granting or withholding bail are not necessarily sufficient, or even to be allowed for, when considering an application to extend the custody time limits. Crown Court judges are recommended to set a trial date at an early stage in proceedings to avoid such difficulties.
	Link[s] omitted

Wasted Costs Order (No 5 of 1997)
2 Sep 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice, Legal Professions	Casemap 1 Cites
	Witness orders for the production of documents in the speculative hope that they might contain matters of assistance should be discouraged, and particularly so in respect of documents held by social services departments. This should now be well known and expected, and counsel breaking this rule should expect a wasted costs order.

Detective Inspector Todd Clements -v- Ed Moloney
2 Sep 1999 CANI Judge Hart QC	Criminal Practice, Media, Human Rights, Northern Ireland	Casemap 1 Cites
	The appellant was northern editor of the Sunday Tribune. He had been ordered to produce notes of an interview with regard to the death of a Belfast Solicitor. The original order was made ex parte, and there was no obligation on the applicant to show any error in the order. The applicant resisted disclosure of the notes upon which the articles had been based. Protection of journalistic sources is a basic condition for press freedom. That requirement was reflected in the protection afforded by the Act. The investigation was likely to be assisted by disclosure of the journalist's notes. Journalists should not give unqualified undertakings which could risk breach of a court order, and with certain additional protections, the order was confirmed.
	Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Hemmings; Regina -v- Miller; Regina -v- Hoines
15 Oct 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	On a re-trial, it remains open to the judge to amend the indictment. Nothing in the Act takes away his powers to do so within the confines set out by the Act. Here a conspiracy charge had been replaced by separate charges of theft. The judge retained his powers under the Indictments Act, and this problem had not been addressed by those passing the later Act.
	Criminal Appeal Act 1968 7 - Indictments Act 1915 5

Regina -v- Emmett (Stephen Roy)
15 Oct 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice
	When the CPS intends to seek an order for costs against a defendant, in future, the defendant must be given notice of the intention to make the application. (it may be that this is to apply in the Court of Appeal only, but this is unclear from the report).

Regina -v- Bedlington Magistrates' Court, ex parte Wilkinson Unreported, 21 October 1999; CO/0900/99
21 Oct 1999 Admn Moses J, Tuckey LJ	Criminal Practice, Costs	Casemap 1 Citers
	In addition to assessment of his solicitor's bill of costs, the acquitted defendant claimed £3,971.50 as "the costs of a specialist graphics contractor" who had been instructed and paid directly by the defendant. Held: Moses J stated: "It does not follow that, because a solicitor has claimed costs and disbursements, that will necessarily rule out other expenses and disbursements having been incurred by the litigant himself." The matter was remitted for reconsideration of whether the item had been "properly incurred" in the particular circumstances of the case.

Regina -v- Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate and The Lord Advocate Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd (On Appeal From A Divisional Court Of The Queen's Bench Division) [1999] UKHL 51; [2000] 1 All ER 135; [2000] 2 WLR 1
28 Oct 1999 HL	Criminal Practice, Scotland
	A Scottish search warrant properly issued and which was to be executed in England could be validly endorsed by an English court for execution in England. Earlier legislation was not superseded by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which restricted certain warrants where the material to be sought out might be protected by forms of privilege.
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9 - Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881
	[ House of Lords ] - [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebeline and others [1999] UKHL 43; [2000] 2 AC 326; [1999] 3 WLR 972; [2000] Crim LR 486; [1999] 4 All ER 801; [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275
28 Oct 1999 HL Lord Hope, Lord Bingham of Cornhill	Criminal Practice, Judicial Review, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The DPP's appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused's human rights was to be pursued at trial, and not by this form of challenge. The degree of deference to, and/or of recognition of the special competence of, the decision-maker is less and, correspondingly, the intensity of the Court's review is greater – perhaps greatest in an Article 2 case – than for those human rights where the Convention requires a balance to be struck. In considering where the balance lies it may be useful to consider the following questions: (1) what does the prosecution have to prove in order to transfer the onus to the defence? (2) what is the burden on the accused – does it relate to something which is likely to be difficult for him to prove, or does it relate to something which is likely to be within his knowledge or (I would add) to which he readily has access (3) what is the nature of the threat faced by society which the provision is designed to combat?
	Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 19(1)(aa) - European Convention on Human Rights 2 - Human Rights Act 1998
	Link[s] omitted

Mooney -v- Cardiff Justices
3 Nov 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice, Magistrates, Costs
	Where a prosecution was discontinued and the defendant applied for his costs, the court should need to hear oral evidence before deciding whether his actions had brought the complaint upon himself. It was proper to hear and rely upon prosecution material, but should look for some independent element supporting an allegation.

Regina -v- Ullah
3 Nov 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	Counsel, in a trial alleging an indecent assault, had failed to raise with the jury the contents of an illegally taped conversation between the complainant and one of her witnesses encouraging perjury. Held: The defect in counsel's conduct of the case was so significant that the verdict was unsafe. The test to be applied was whether counsel's conduct and decisions had been reasonable. Where they had not, a conviction might be unsafe.

Regina -v- Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley [2000] QB 576; [2001] All ER 411; [2000] 2 WLR 409
10 Nov 1999 QBD Kennedy LJ	Criminal Practice, Police	Casemap 1 Citers
	When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles for which legal professional privilege was claimed, provided the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the material was not so protected. Material removed, but then found not to have been covered by the warrant, must be returned immediately. The court disagreed that, before seizing the document, the officer had to be satisfied that it did not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege. "The officers are not, for example, required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material sought does not consist of or include items subject to legal professional privilege". Kennedy LJ said: "I accept, of course, that any failure to comply with the requirements of either section 15 or section 16 renders the whole process of entry and search unlawful . ."
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8(1)

Regina -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Ex Parte Tamosius & Partners [2000] 1 WLR 453
10 Nov 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice, Taxes Management	1 Citers
	Officers executing a search warrant under the Taxes Management section could properly have accompany them, a legally qualified person who could make immediate assessments of any claim for protection for materials at the property searched by way of legal professional privilege. Such a procedure was sensible. An assertion of a claim of legal privilege was not to be accepted simply as asserted.
	Taxes Management Act 1970 20C

Regina -v- Twitchell [2000] 1 Cr App R 373
10 Nov 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Court of Appeal is not able to make findings of fact. The ability for example to examine an officer to assist the court in deciding whether the original verdict was based upon ignorance or otherwise of material facts, should be used only carefully, and not extended to include the making of findings of fact. Twitchell had been convicted in 1982. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his appeal to this Court in January 1998. The catalyst was a successful civil action brought by another man Treadaway against the police. It was in April 1994 that Treadaway established in his civil proceedings that one or more of the same officers had acted discreditably in dealing with Treadaway in 1982. In other words, the officers had misbehaved in their dealings with Treadaway at about the same time as the investigation into Twitchell but hard evidence in the form of the outcome of Treadaway's civil action did not become available for a further twelve years.

Regina -v- Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina -v- City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper [1999] 164 JP 209
7 Dec 1999 QBD	Criminal Practice, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of 'criminal investigation' has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation into an offence begins before the cut off point after which old, full-style committals cease to be available, and the offence is committed after that date, an old style committal remains available. "In particular this may be so in a surveillance case or where a series of offences is committed, some before and some after the appointed day. Whether, of course, in any given case that is the correct view will be a question of fact for the examining magistrates. They must … ask themselves the simple question: when did the criminal investigation of this offence begin?"
	Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Regina -v- Wisdom and Sinclair Unreported, 10 December 1999
10 Dec 1999 CACD	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	Rarely if ever could a section 34 direction be appropriate on failure to mention an admittedly true fact at interview. Since the adverse inference in question is that a matter not mentioned at interview is likely to be untrue, there is no room for the inference if that matter is agreed to be true.
	Criiminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 834

Regina -v- McCoy [2000] 6 Archbold News 2; 1101674/W4
10 Dec 1999 CACD Laws LJ	Criminal Practice	Casemap 1 Citers
	The judge should direct the jury fully about the handicap which the inability to cross-examine the witness placed upon the defence, and possible lines of cross-examination which the appellants had lost: "If a statement of a critical witness is to be read to a jury, perhaps especially in an alibi case where identification is the true issue, it must be incumbent on the trial judge to ensure that the jury realise the drawbacks which are imposed on the defence if the prosecution statement is read to them. It is not enough simply to say that counsel has not had the opportunity of cross-examining. The lay jury may not appreciate the significance of that fact. The judge must at least explain that it means that they may feel quite unable to attach anything like as much weight to the evidence in the statement, as they might if it were tested in cross-examination; and where appropriate it would be necessary, certainly desirable, for the judge also to indicate to the jury by way of illustration the sort of matters that might well be put in cross-examination in the particular case. None of that was done in this case."

William McDermott -v- Her Majesty's Advocate [1999] ScotHC 252
17 Dec 1999 HCJ Lady Cosgrove and Lord Allanbridge and Lord Justice Clerk	Scotland, Criminal Practice
	The appellant had been convicted of murder. He had given details of an alibi, but it appeared this might not have been fully investigated, in satisfying the duty imposed on the prosecutor by section 36. The status of the section was questioned. Held: The section imposed no duty on the prosecutor to communicate the results of his investigation, and no sanction for breach of it. The prosecutor should not be required to lead evidence that he had complied with the section.
	Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 36(10) 205(2)
	Link[s] omitted