Parties to ancillary relief proceedings were not entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in order to withhold the disclosure of financial information and such information was to be treated as being obtained under compulsion and would be inadmissible as evidence for the purpose of other proceedings, but statements made in "without prejudice" discussions were admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings.
|
The appropriate remedy for abuse of confiscation proceedings would normally be a stay of proceedings, but an abuse of process argument could not be founded on the basis that the consequences of the proper application of the legislative structure could produce an "oppressive" result.
|
An offender's previous convictions for robbery, and the escalation in seriousness of each offence, meant that a judge had properly considered the issue of dangerousness and been entitled to impose a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.
|
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division held that where the Crown proceeded on an indictment which all parties, including the judge, thought had been validly amended but which, by an oversight, had not, the proceedings on which the indictment was based were a nullity and any conviction arising from them had to be quashed.
|
The fact that the arrest in hospital of a person suspected of driving while over the legal alcohol limit was unlawful by virtue of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.6D(3) did not mean that a subsequent blood test was unlawful.
|
A conviction for aggravated burglary was unsafe where the judge had admitted evidence of the accused's co-defendants' pleas of guilty to aggravated burglary under the Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b) when the accused was charged with aggravated burglary under s.9(1)(a) of the Act, and had failed to provide the jury with the bases of the pleas, so that the pleas had no probative value to the crucial issue against the accused of whether he was armed.
|
The court was wrong to refuse to admit a previous conviction for driving whilst disqualified (in order to prove that the defendant was disqualified) on the grounds that a previous application to adduce bad character had been refused.
|
Changes to the CJA 1991 early release provisions (enacted by the CJIA 2008) did not breach the prisoner's article 6 rights (he was still subject to release by the parole baord, while others would be automatically released).
|
Expenses in respect of professional services incurred after the date of a representation order were in principle capable of being "out-of-pocket expenses" and therefore recoverable out of central funds under a defendant's costs order. The court gave guidance as to the circumstances a determining officer should consider in determining whether to reimburse a defendant for such expenses.
|
The question for the court was whether a Youth Court could convict a single defendant where the case had been brought on the basis of joint enterprise where the Youth Court found there was no joint enterprise and where the Youth Court could not return an alternative verdict. The answer was “yes”.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |