A person who possessed an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, did so "with a view to" its being distributed or shown by him or others, contrary to s.1(1)(c) Protection of Children Act 1978, if one of his reasons, but not necessarily the primary reason, for possessing it, was that it would be distributed or shown.
|
Provided the conduct in the offence of cheating the public revenue occurred before a gift was made, the requirement in s.74(10) CJA 1988 that a gift was caught if made by D at any time after committing the offence, was satisfied.
|
An essential ingredient of the offence of causing a public nuisance was that D’s act or omission caused common injury to a section of the public. So individual acts of private nuisance committed against several different individuals did not amount to the offence. If D’s act, which was not unlawful, had consequences which he did not intend and which he was not proven to have foreseen, he could not be found guilty of causing a public nuisance.
|
A D who raised the issue of self-defence was not entitled to rely on a mistaken belief induced by voluntary intoxication, regardless of whether the defence was raised against a charge of murder or one of manslaughter.
|
It was held that the Hunting Act 2004 was valid.
|
When a charge of section 20 OAPA 1861 is to be left to the jury it is better that it appears on the indictment.
|
The applicant was entitled to his costs as a caution could be distinguished from a conviction in many ways, despite his admission to having committed the offence in question.
|
D while in custody placed a blanket down the toilet causing flooding. There was a case to answer in relation to a count of criminal damage. Both blanket and cell were rendered out of use until dried out.
|
R’s opening speech should not deal with the law save where there are issues of real complication and difficulty and the judge agrees the jury would be assisted by it. Convictions were quashed as being unsafe where the trial judge's attitude and conduct towards counsel for D had damaged D’s confidence in the administration of justice in her case and would similarly have damaged the perception of any reasonable observer present at the trial.
|
The 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for certain firearms offences, expect in exceptional circumstances, should not be imposed if it would result in an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |