“The case was concerned with competing applications relating to a substantial cache of firearms seized some years ago in the course of Operation Trident. Specifically, there was an application by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, for their destruction and an application by the man from whom they were originally seized (and who had since served a sentence of imprisonment in that regard) for their return. It prompted the court to examine how the law on the conversion of chattels and the limitation of actions applies to applications under the Police (Property) Act 1897 and also to consider what evidence is required regarding the legal basis of the seizure in order to allow for an application for destruction under the Firearms Act 1968 …”

ADDED Monday 10^th May 2021

“The case was concerned with the notification requirements imposed on registered terrorist offenders who have been convicted of certain specified terrorist offences. This was an interlocutory application for permission to appeal, so the defendant is identified in the judgment only by the initial ‘R’ …”

ADDED Thursday 6^th May 2021

“The case was concerned with the situation where witnesses have made written statements which unambiguously support certain charges but, when they are called to give evidence, they in effect stand mute and refuse to answer any substantive questions. It prompted the court to consider whether such so-called ‘hostile silence’ entitles the prosecution to adduce the witnesses’ statements as hearsay evidence - either as previous inconsistent statements under s.119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or in the interests of justice under s.114(1)(d)...”

ADDED Tuesday 4^th May 2021

“The case related to a tragic and fatal accident on hotel premises. It prompted the Court of Appeal to consider the intersection between criminal and civil liability and the practical relevance of a criminal conviction to subsequent civil proceedings. It likely to be of particular interest to those involved in or acting on behalf of the hospitality sector and for practitioners specialising in the field of health and safety ...”

ADDED Friday 30^th April 2021

This was an appeal from a confiscation order following a conviction for breach of a planning enforcement notice and it raised two discrete issues. The Court of Appeal considered the scope and effect of the judgment handed down by a previous constitution of the court in R v Panayi (Andrew) [2019] 2 Cr App R (S) 21, which was itself the subject of a video case review in the CrimeCast series: ‘The Top 50 Cases of 2019’. And the court also reviewed its powers on an appeal by the prosecution under s.31(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from a confiscation order made in the Crown Court (as distinct from a prosecution appeal under s.31(2) against a refusal to make a confiscation order). Specifically, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether it had power to remit the case to the Crown Court.

ADDED Wednesday 28^th April 2021

“The case concerned the ambit of the Secretary of State’s power under s.5(2) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to issue warrants to the Government Communication Headquarters, authorising intelligence activities such as computer hacking. It prompted the court to review both the aversion of the common law to general warrants and the canon of statutory interpretation known as ‘the principle of legality’ and then to consider the lawfulness of so-called ‘thematic’ warrants aimed at an entire class of persons or category of equipment ...”

ADDED Tuesday 27^th April 2021

“The case arose from charges of marital rape and was concerned with the provisions restricting the cross-examination of a complainant about her sexual history. It prompted the Court of Appeal to consider the operation of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and, in particular, whether it applies to questions about sexual orientation and sexual identity ...”

ADDED Friday 23^rd April 2021

“The case was concerned with a prosecution relating to what was said to be a grossly offensive video, sent via WhatsApp and later posted on YouTube, allegedly mocking the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. It prompted the Divisional Court to consider the nature of an appeal by way of case stated, the constraints placed on the High Court as regards the evidence to which it can refer on such an appeal and the minimum requirements for the contents of the written Case Stated for the opinion of the court ...”

ADDED Wednesday 14^th April 2021

“The case was concerned with an alleged gangland execution in the course of the illicit trade in illegal drugs. It prompted the Court of Appeal to stress the need for a robust approach to be taken to the whole concept of ‘professional embarrassment’ and to highlight the degree of care required before trial lawyers take what Fulford LJ described as the ‘grave step’ of withdrawing from a case ...”

ADDED Monday 12^th April 2021