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.
