This was the first prosecution under s.5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
|
Where evidence was admitted in relation to conduct not charged, but identical to the indictment charges, it could not be admitted under s.98 CJA 2003 as it was to do with the alleged facts of the offence and was linked in time. However, it was admissible under s101 CJA 2003. Also deals with the requirement to give a Brown direction.
|
Case dealing with a breach of procedural rules (admission of co-D’s bad character) and judges’ case management powers (in this instance the Judge refused a late application, finding it to be an ambush).
|
D's computer was seized pursuant to a civil search order. On that computer was found illegal material. It was argued by D that the material (highly objectionable images of children) should not be passed to the police as they were obtained via compulsory powers of seizure and thereby interfered with D's right not to incriminate himself. Held: There was no privilege in the material seized and it should be passed to the police.
|
D was serving a determinate sentence. His parole application was delayed for a period of over 8 months and it was argued that he was therefore entitled to damages for interference with his article 5 right to liberty. Held (reversing the lower court): D was entitled to damages.
|
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction & Sentence - Moorov Doctrine
On 13 May 2004 the appellant was convicted by majority at the High Court at Glasgow of four charges, namely, (1) lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour; (2) a contravention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, section 5; (3) a contravention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976, section 4; and (4) lewd, indecent and libidinous practices and behaviour. On 10 June 2004, the appellant was sentenced to a total period of seven years imprisonment, five years being in respect of char ...
|
Consent under s.335 POCA 2000 should only be withheld with good reason. Before further requests could be considered, a requirement that there be a change of circumstances was not lawful. It was not a requirement of s.335 that the request be made personally by the bank. A number of interested parties had the right to make the request and have it considered by SOCA.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |