R v Jones (Sally Ann) [2022] 1 Cr App R 4

The case concerned the use of so-called Norwich Pharmacal orders obtained in the civil courts in aid of private prosecutions; and whether the wording of a settlement agreement in civil proceedings acted as a bar to subsequent criminal proceedings.

ADDED Friday 10th December 2021

Neale v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] 2 Cr App R 9

Was there any legal requirement upon a person on whom the police wished to serve a Fixed Penalty Notice under the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 to supply his name and address to the police officer in question?

ADDED Wednesday 8th December 2021

R v Pitcher (Kenneth) [2021] 2 Cr App R 18

Should a Lucas direction be given, or replicated in similar terms, in relation to established lies told by a prosecution witness, where the defendant’s case is that it was that prosecution witness who was the actual perpetrator of the crime in question?

ADDED Monday 6th December 2021

In re Pembrokeshire Herald [2021] 1 WLR 5531

A newspaper sought to appeal from a trial judge's refusal either to revoke a reporting restriction order or, in the alternative, to make a so-called ‘excepting direction’ that it was in the public interest for that restriction to be removed or relaxed.

ADDED Wednesday 1st December 2021

London Borough of Barnet v Kamyab [2021] Lloyd’s Rep FC 520

Having allowed the prosecutor’s appeal against the amount of the confiscation order made in the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal had then directed that a rehearing of the merits of the confiscation application should take place before the CACD itself.

ADDED Tuesday 30th November 2021

CPS v Aquila Advisory Limited [2019] Lloyd’s Rep FC 358

Where a confiscation order was made against company directors, could the CPS enforce that order against the identified proceeds of the fraud in priority to the proprietary claim of the company whose directors were the chief engineers of the fraud?

ADDED Friday 19th November 2021

R v Alstom Network UK Ltd [2019] 2 Cr App R 34

Did a corporate defendant have a fair trial where the individuals, who were said to be its DMWs and whose culpability was said to be attributable to the company under the 'identification' or 'attribution' principle, had been absent from the trial?

ADDED Thursday 18th November 2021