The Court of Appeal considered the scope and effect of R v Panayi (Andrew) [2019] 2 Cr App R (S) 21 and reviewed its powers on a prosecution appeal from the amount of, rather than a refusal to make, an order.
What is the ambit of the Secretary of State’s power to issue warrants to GCHQ, authorising intelligence activities such as computer hacking? The court expressly recognised the aversion of the common law to general warrants and considered the lawfulness of so-called ‘thematic’ warrants, aimed at an entire class of persons or an entire category of equipment.
The case was concerned with 'hostile silence', where witnesses have made written statements but, when called, they stand mute. Can the prosecution adduce their statements as hearsay in the interests of justice or as previous inconsistent statements?
The case was concerned with the doctrine of residual diplomatic immunity, enjoyed by former diplomats after they have left their diplomatic post in a foreign embassy. The court considered the nature of immunity from suit and what is meant by 'the exercise of functions as a member of the mission'.
The case concerned whether Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for an extended period (advice which she was constitutionally bound to follow) trespassed beyond the limits of the prerogative power and whether it was justiciable.
The case related to marital rape and the cross-examination of complainants in sex cases. The Court of Appeal considered the operation of s.41 YJCEA 1999 and, in particular, whether it applies to questions about sexual orientation and sexual identity.
An appeal from the Tribunal on the issue whether Security Service guidelines authorising agents to participate in criminality had any legal basis and whether they were compatible with the rule of law and with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The CACD emphasised the need for a robust approach to the whole concept of ‘professional embarrassment’ and underlined the degree of care required before trial lawyers can take what Fulford LJ described as the ‘grave step’ of withdrawing from a case.
A fatal accident on hotel premises led to conviction under the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) examined the intersection of criminal and civil liability and the relevance of the conviction in a civil action.
The appeal was based on a supposed lack of balance in the judge’s summing up. The CACD emphasised the imperative need for counsel not to sit on their hands but to raise with the judge at the time any issues they may have with his or her summing up.
ADDED Friday 20th August 2021
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Video Id\'s
_gid:
Cookies for logged in users:
wordpress_logged_in_
wordpress_sec_
Cookies in Forms
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary:yes
cookielawinfo-checkbox-non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Cookies in Forms
Google analytic cookies:
_gat_gtag_UA_178768543_1
_ga