The Home Sec. did have the power (under the CJA 2003) after 4/4/05 to recall to prison those released on license before that date.
|
A judge was entitled to deal with pre-trial issues on the basis of written representations, and could limit the length of those submissions. It was the duty of all advocates and solicitors to be familiar with the Protocol of Disclosure.
|
Exceptional progress whilst in custody should be taken into account when deciding on an appropriate tariff in murder cases. The 2003 Act does not justify increases in reductions on account of exceptional progress substantially beyond those it was the practice of the Home Secretary to make (1 - 2 years).
|
Aggression was not capable of being a crime under English domestic law; protesters against the Iraq war who disrupted operational activities at military bases in England could not therefore justify their conduct on the ground that they were preventing a “crime” under s.3 of the 1967 Act or an “offence” under s.68 of the 1994 Act.
|
The Ds had previously had appeals against sentence refused. The present case was before the court, pursuant to leave having been granted following a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Ds had been on bail for some time. At the appeal the appellant's submitted that if the appeal was refused, the Court might use s.9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 as a way to review the sentence and prevent a return to custody. Held: Parliament had not intended that s.9 CAA 1995 should be used ...
|
D was stopped by a police officer in connection with a traffic offence. On two occasions he was cautioned by the officer, but at no name was he questioned in relation to the offence. He was told that he would be reported for summons, and in due course was summonsed for an offence of dangerous driving. At trial the defendant ran a defence of duress of circumstances. The trial judge allowed the jury to draw such inferences from the defendant's silence on caution as appeared proper. On appeal it wa ...
|
Charged with animal cruelty, C had argued that she had done all that she could reasonably do to prevent suffering. C was found not guilty. The RSPCA appealed and argued that it was wrong in law to take into account age and C's position in the family unit, and should instead have applied a purely objective test, that of reasonably competent, reasonably caring owner. Held: It was appropriate to apply a subjective element and the justices were obliged to consider the reasons why C did not take the ...
|
When deciding whether, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, a community sentence could be justified, the sentencer should have regard to the importance, on the facts of the particular case, of imposing a sentence which would encourage reformation and rehabilitation of the offender and thereby the reduction of crime. The fact that prisons were overcrowded might be a relevant factor where the sentencer’s decision was on the cusp. However, courts should not be deterred from sending to p ...
|
When the court was imposing a confiscation order, s.74(4) of the CJA 1988 Act did not apply to the assessment of the value of benefit under s.71(4) of that Act.
|
It should be made clear to each D that if he fails to attend a trial, the consequences may well be that the trial will proceed in his absence and without legal representation. If waiver is to be established, then knowledge of, or indifference to, the consequences of being tried in his absence and without legal representation would have to be proved.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |