Evaluates in a historical context the Court of Appeal guidance in R. v B, referred to as R. v Barker, on the correct interpretation of the child witness competence provisions in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.53, including as regards whether procedural delay or the professed inability of the defence to cross-examine effectively, particularly in the absence of an intermediary, should be deemed to be fatal to a trial's fairness.
|
Appeal dismissed: The court made obiter observations and gave guidance for the future about the use of special counsel in an appeal against conviction where the grounds of appeal related to a witness anonymity order made under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. The guidance was prompted by the fact that the Act was relatively new and it was the first time complaints about its provisions had been presented for judicial consideration by the Court of Appeal.
|
Appeal dismissed: The judgment in Zafar v DPP [2004] EWHC 2468 (Admin), (2005) 169 J.P. 208, [2005] C.L.Y. 779 did not alter the position that a type-approved breathalyser could not be challenged in a criminal court, and the Crown Court had correctly dismissed an individual's appeal against conviction for an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(a).
|
Outcome: Appeal allowed: The power of the appellate court to order a retrial following the quashing of a conviction was contained in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.7 and was not eroded by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.75, which concerned the situation following an acquittal.
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Sentence:- The appellant was convicted after trial on indictment at Dundee Sheriff Court on charges of:- (1) being concerned in the supply of heroin contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; (2) obstructing officers of Tayside Police in execution of their duty contrary to section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and (3) being in possession of a quantity of cannabis resin contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. All of t ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- Following trial at the High Court at Paisley on 15 August 2002 the appellant was convicted of a charge of assault to severe injury and a charge of rape. On 5 September 2002, the court sentenced the appellant to twelve years imprisonment to run from 15 August 2002, in cumulo in respect of the two charges. A number of grounds of appeal against his conviction were lodged one of which was to the effect that a miscarriage of justice had occurred ...
|
Reference from Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:- On 22 November 2006 following a trial at Glasgow High Court the appellant was convicted of two charges of aggravated assault. The appellant was subsequently sentenced to an extended sentence of 8 years detention comprising a custodial term of 6 years and an extension period of 2 years in relation to charge one. In relation to the second charge he was sentenced to 18 months detention to run concurrently with the first charge. The appellan ...
|
Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 12 October 2001 at Edinburgh High Court the appellant was convicted after trial of a charge of murder. After significant delay and protracted procedure a number of grounds of appeal were argued on behalf of the appellant:- (1) the appellant did not receive a fair trial as a consequence of prejudicial publicity both prior to and during his trial; (2) the trial judge erred in admitting, as hearsay evidence under section 259 of the Criminal Proce ...
|
Appeal dismissed: The provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.53 regarding the competence of witnesses to give evidence were clear and unequivocal and did not require reinterpretation, and a judge had been entitled to conclude that the competence of a four year old child to give evidence in relation to an allegation of rape had been established.
|
Application refused: The need for a jury direction of the type from R. v Brown (Kevin) (1984) 1 B.C.C. 98970, [1984] C.L.Y. 624 would seldom occur and would not occur when what was alleged was a course of conduct. It was necessary only in those cases where two or more different ways of committing the same offence were alleged in the same count.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |