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.
|
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).
|
Procedural failures in adjourning confiscation proceedings did not invalidate the confiscation orders.
|
The Parole Board was theoretically entitled to withhold information relating to a prisoner’s parole review from the prisoner and his legal representatives and to disclose it instead to a special advocate appointed to represent him at a private hearing from which the prisoner and his representatives were excluded.
|
There was no duty of care to be owed by the police to a victim or witness in relation to their activities in the investigation of a suspected crime.
|
When D’s confession was admitted under s.76(2) PACE 1984, the judge had to direct the jury that if they concluded that the confession was obtained by oppression or other improper methods they must ignore it.
|
There was no duty of care to be owed by the police to a victim or witness in relation to their activities in the investigation of a suspected crime.
|
When D’s confession was admitted under s.76(2) PACE 1984, the judge had to direct the jury that if they concluded that the confession was obtained by oppression or other improper methods they must ignore it.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 |