The grounds of appeal relate to the trial judges directions to the jury. It is maintained that the trial judge ought to have directed the jury that in the event of them finding the appellant was not guilty of contravening section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it was open to them to convict the appellant of a contravention of section 3. The second ground of appeal relates to the trial judges directions to the jury in regard to the standard proof of guilt.
|
3 questions must be answered before allowing a D’s previous convictions to go before the court to show propensity to commit the offence charged under CJA 2003: 1. Did the history of his convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? 2. Did that propensity make it more likely that D had committed the offence charged? 3. Was it unjust to rely on the previous convictions and, in any event, would the proceedings be unfair if they were admitted? Previous convictions we ...
|
At the original trial the proceedings had been relayed in sound and vision to a Remote Viewing Room (RVR) within the High Court building. On 28 September on the motion of the defence the trial judge Lord McEwan deserted the diet simpliciter. The Lord Advocate has appealed by Bill of Advocation against that decision. Consideration of the use of the RVR room.
|
Where the statement of a witness absent through fear or disappearance had to be read in court, D could not contend that he had been impoverished of the right to cross-examine them and that therefore his trial was unfair.
|
A defence of duress was not available where as a result of the defendant voluntarily joining a criminal gang he had foreseen or ought reasonably to have foreseen a risk that he would be forced to act through threats of violence. A statement intended to exonerate the maker and which at face value so appears, but which later becomes damaging to the maker at trial, cannot be a confession under s.76 PACE 1984.
|
A D who handed a syringe of heroin to another person for immediate injection and was thus jointly engaged in administering the heroin to that person, was guilty of manslaughter when death resulted from the injection.
|
In restraint proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 a judge was entitled to take into account the assumptions as to criminal lifestyle and to make an order of unlimited amount.
|
If a judge passing sentence knew that he was subsequently likely to have to undertake a fact-finding hearing e.g. a confiscation hearing, he must not convey himself in a manner which might be seen as indicating that he was partial against D and unlikely to believe him.
|
The requirement to bring proceedings within a reasonable time under the ECHR was engaged where HM Customs and Excise sought to reopen a confiscation order under s.16 of Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
|
A convicted benefit fraudster could not obtain notional tax credit to which he would have been entitled but for his dishonesty.
|
| 1 2 |