The authorities demonstrated that the fact that D was a prison officer was a matter which increased the seriousness of the offence, particularly given that they would know very well the problem of drugs in prisons.
|
In deciding whether a crime is grave, or that the dangerous offender provisions require D to be sent to the Crown Court forthwith, the court must consider: 1. that the policy of the legislature is that those under 18 should, wherever possible, be tried in a youth court, which is best designed for their specific needs; 2. the guidance given by the CA, particularly in relation to non-serious specified offences; 3. the need, in relation to under 18s, to be p ...
|
Evidence, of a suspect or witness, obtained by torture is not admissible against a party in a British court, irrespective of where, by whom or on whose authority the torture had been inflicted. The fact that evidence had or might have been procured by torture by foreign officials without the complicity of British authorities was relevant as to its weight but did not render it inadmissible.
|
In so far as it permitted evidence to be adduced from a witness who was not available for cross-examination, s.114 CJA 2003 was not incompatible with D’s right under Art.6(3)(d) ECHR to examine witnesses against him.
|
In relation to an offence of ‘doing an act which caused or was likely to cause serious injury’ contrary to s.58(2)(a) Merchant Shipping Act 1995, it was held that a jet-ski did not fall within the definition of ‘ship’.
|
Where a jury had been discharged following a successful application to stay proceedings owing to abuse of process or because it had not been able to reach a verdict, it could not return a verdict of guilty to a lesser offence where the relevant statutes provided that a jury could only convict of the lesser offence if there had been a not guilty verdict in relation to the more serious offence.
|
S.75(1) Representation of the People Act 1983 is compatible with Art.10 ECHR but there is not an absolute bar in unauthorised third party election expenses in relation to s.75(1)(a) and (b). It follows that the judge misdirected the jury when he told them that D "was not allowed to promote a candidate by incurring any election expenses".
|
In cases where an adult D is convicted of murder, and the question is the minimum length of the punitive term of imprisonment to be served, the judge has the discretion to order an oral hearing whenever he believes such a hearing to be required in the interests of fairness.
|
Criminal:Appeal By Way of Stated Case
Appeal by way of stated case against verdicts of not guilty which were returned by the sheriff at Kirkcaldy in respect of four charges on a complaint against the respondent. Road Traffic Offence. Although the respondents evidence that he had not been the driver of a vehicle travelling at 156 mph in a 70 zone and whilst on his mobile phone was rejected the sheriff did accept his evidence to the effect that he had not received a notice of intended prosecution in respect of certain of the alleged o ...
|
Appeals remitted to court of three judges in order that it may consider the implication of the practice of justices using sentencing guidelines which have been devised for that court.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |