Decision in relation to DJ’s decision to stay proceedings as an abuse of process due to the young D’s inability to understand the proceedings. Obiter: only the presumption of doli incapax is abolished, but not the defence itself.
|
As a matter of principle, double jeopardy is not available as a plea in bar unless both sets of proceedings under consideration are criminal proceedings. Given the developing jurisprudence in relation to abuse of process there is no realistic scope for, nor any purpose in, developing the concept of double jeopardy beyond its established limits. Anything falling outside these limits which savours of abuse of process, or unfairness, or oppression, can be addressed and decided on now well establish ...
|
Police has a duty to protect vulnerable witnesses who had been threatened.
|
Held: A Judge was entitled to ask questions of a witness in order to place evidence in context. Such questioning ought not to be sustained, but it was the duty of the judge to ensure that the true state of the evidence was clarified for the benefit of the jury.
|
18 months impt. for 2 counts of theft (1 involving 4 bottles of perfume, the other 2 bottles of aftershave (committed whilst on bail), and 1 further TIC for theft) upheld. The court stated "We consider that given D’s previous convictions, the nature of the offences, the fact that both offences were committed whilst on licence and that the second was committed at a time when D should have been in court in connection with the first offence, the sentences cannot be said to be manifestly excessive. ...
|
Extended sentences under the CJA 2003 (2.5 years and 18 months extended licence) upheld in cases of violent disorder.
|
A Judge should direct a jury on its common law right to acquit a defendant at the close of the prosecution case only in the most exceptional case.
|
Duty of legal advisers when retrospective public is applied for in relation to a case hitherto privately funded.
|
When assessing compensation for loss of earning arising out of a miscarriage of justice, the money that the defendant would have had to pay for his living expenses were he not in prison should be deducted.
|
Aggressive, but non-violent behaviour as a result of not taking medication did not amount to reprehensible conduct so as to be admissible in relation to an allegation of murder. Further, even if the court were wrong on that, it would not amount to important explanatory evidence.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |