It was an abuse of the court’s process for a private prosecution to be brought against D after he had accepted a formal caution by a police officer on the express assurance that, if he agreed to be cautioned, he would not have to go before a criminal court in connection with the offence.
|
D’s continued detention in custody whilst awaiting trial after the court’s refusal to extend the statutory custody time limit due to the prosecution’s failure to act with due diligence and expedition, did not necessarily amount to a breach of D’s right to “trial within a reasonable time” under art.5(3) ECHR, within HRA 1998.
|
On a trial for murder an alternative verdict of manslaughter should ordinarily be left to the jury if there is evidence to support it, whether the parties wish it left or not.
|
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.
|
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 powers to stop and search in ss.44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were lawful in domestic law and not in breach of Arts 5, 8, 10 or 11 of the ECHR.
|
The notification requirements under the sexual offences register were no activated where an offender had been conditionally discharged.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 |