The appeals would be dismissed. There was no principle that where evidence represented the sole substantial evidence in the case against D, it should never be admissible under s.23 CJA ’88 because the interests of justice test could never be satisfied. It could not be right, where compelling evidence was the sole or decisive evidence, that the admission in evidence had to lead automatically to a D’s right to a fair trial under Art.6 ECHR being infringed. Under ss.23 and 26 of the ’88 Act, althou ...
|
The progress of a child or young person sentenced to detention during her Majesty’s pleasure before 30/11/00 should remain subject to continuing review for reconsideration of the minimum term imposed if reasonable to require it because of clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress.
|
When reviewing the minimum term which a child or young person sentenced before 30/11/00 for murder to detention at her Majesty’s pleasure, he is not obligated to hold an oral hearing.
|
Once evidence of a D’s bad character had been admitted as a result of his attack on another person’s character, it could then be used, if relevant, to show his propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he was charged.
|
Where a D was liable to be cross examined on his previous convictions if he gave evidence, it was appropriate for a judge to direct the jury that they could draw an adverse inference against him if he failed to give evidence (case decided under provisions of CEA 1898).
|
A fair minded and informed observer would not think that there was a real possibility that a juror was biased against D merely because that juror was a serving police officer or employed by the CPS.
|
Despite the good character of many young people who engage in out-of-character drink-fuelled violence, lengthy custodial sentences would often be appropriate.
|
The CJA 2003 provisions relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence apply to all trials taking place after 4/4/05, even if a preparatory hearing took place before then.
|
Procedural failures in adjourning confiscation proceedings did not invalidate the confiscation orders.
|
S.30(6) ASBO Act 2003 does not confer on a uniformed constable or a PCSO any power to use force in removing a person under 16 to his place of residence.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |