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 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 conduct, whether or not contained in the list of "framework offences" under the Council of the EU’s scheme for establishing more effective surrender procedures between member states and Sch. 2 to the Extradition Act 2003, could constitute extradition offences under s.65(3) of that Act where some, but not all, of the conduct complained of occurred in the territory of the issuing member state.
|
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.
|
It was held that the Hunting Act 2004 was valid.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 |