The court modified the application of domestic privilege against self-incrimination so as to exclude from its ambit material constituting free-standing evidence that was not created by a respondent to a search order under compulsion. Where a search order obtained in an action for breach of confidence and copyright infringement led to the discovery of obscene images of children, the common law privilege against self-incrimination did not prevent the court from directing that the material be passe ...
|
In extradition proceedings the appropriate route for challenging a decision reached under the Extradition Act 2003 s.7 as to whether a person appearing before court was identifiable as one and the same as the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant was issued was by way of judicial review.
|
The subsequent signature, in the course of the trial, of an amended indictment by the proper officer of the court, is material. It was upon an indictment signed, and properly so-called, that convictions were entered. In the absence of prejudice to D, the proceedings were thereby validated.
|
Once a Judge had determined that D (with convictions) should be afforded a good character direction D was entitled at least to a direction to the effect that his credibility was intact and undamaged either by the convictions or otherwise, and that the jury should take that into account in assessing the credibility of his evidence and the explanations he had given. A judge who has decided that D is, for the purposes of the trial, of good character, must confer the benefit on him of a good charact ...
|
A conviction for conspiracy to cheat the public revenue was safe even though the Crown had not, on compelling public interest grounds, disclosed its source of information that appeared to support D’s claim that he had not reported the fraud due to threats of violence. An admission comprising the gist of the information made it plausible, but not likely, that D had been threatened and, in any case, there had been an abundance of circumstantial evidence showing the offender's involvement in the fr ...
|
D, charged under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.2, s.3 or s.4, in asking the jury to consider whether it had established that it had done all that was reasonably practicable, could not be prevented from adducing evidence in support of its case that it had taken all reasonable steps to eliminate the likelihood of the relevant risk eventuating.
|
Evidence of the identity of a person who was the source of D’s belief that a female had consented to sexual conduct was in principle relevant evidence as to whether they had had that belief and was therefore admissible under the YJCEA 1999 s.41(3)(a), but on the facts the exclusion of that evidence had not made convictions for kidnap and sexual assault on a female unsafe.
|
A conviction was not to be regarded as unsafe simply because the evidence of anonymous witnesses might have been decisive.
|
There was no justification for requiring a separate document in addition to the European arrest warrant in order to meet the requirement of a "certificate" under the Extradition Act 2003 s.64(2) where relevant material, such as the fact that the offence was within the European framework list, had been included in the warrant.
|
To be guilty of conspiracy to launder money, contrary to s.93C(2) CJA 1988, s.1(2) CLA 1977 required that D had to be aware that the property involved was in fact the proceeds of crime or, in the case of unidentified property, intend that it would be; suspicion was not enough.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |