R (Leigh) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 3141

The cancellation of a planned vigil in memory of Sarah Everard highlighted how the restrictions on outdoor gatherings at the height of the Covid 19 pandemic had to be subject to the ECHR rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.

ADDED Monday 22nd August 2022

R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2020] 1 Cr App R 3

“The case was concerned with the development of Automatic Facial Recognition technology for the prevention and detection of crime and the court reviewed, specifically, the adequacy of the current legal framework. The judicial review claim focused on certain AFR deployments in the course of a pilot project which commenced in mid-2017. It prompted the Divisional Court to consider the police’s common law powers as well as the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention, the data protection legislation and the public sector equality requirement ...”

ADDED Monday 25th January 2021

R v Whatcott (Christopher) [2020] Lloyds’s Rep FC 65

“The case was concerned with the not unusual situation where questions of construction, depending on the application of civil law principles, arise for determination in criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal had to consider the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a trial judge himself or herself to decide such a question and, in effect, withdraw the issue from the jury. And the court also took the opportunity to emphasise that such questions of construction are questions of law in relation to which it is generally inappropriate to talk about the burden and standard of proof ...”

ADDED Thursday 21st January 2021

R v Gillings (Keith) [2020] 2 Cr App R 8

“The case concerned the approach to be taken to prosecution applications to adduce a defendant’s convictions, where those convictions are very old but where it is nevertheless said that they demonstrate propensity. The court considered the respective roles of the judge and the jury in relation to bad character evidence of this sort, emphasising the two-stage assessment by the judge of capacity to demonstrate propensity and of likely prejudice. And their Lordships also took the opportunity to reiterate the guidance recently given by the Court of Appeal about the content of sentencing remarks …”

ADDED Wednesday 20th January 2021

R v Haque (Mohammed) [2020] 1 WLR 2239

“The case concerned the true construction of the provisions within Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 that create the money laundering offences. In particular, it focused on the point at which property becomes criminal property for the purpose of the different types of prohibited dealing there set out. It is fair to say that the appeal rested on a technicality and bore no relation to the merits of the case but, as the court itself recognised, that is no bar to a successful appeal if the point is sound …”

ADDED Monday 18th January 2021

R (British Broadcasting Corporation) v Newcastle Crown Court [2020] 1 Cr App R 16

“The BBC applied for judicial review of a production order, relating to a journalist’s written note of a pre-broadcast interview conducted with an alleged victim of sexual abuse, prior to him being interviewed live by Victoria Derbyshire on her flagship programme. The central issue was whether material obtained by way of a PACE production order must be likely to be immediately admissible in evidence, i.e. admissible on its face and without more, rather than just contingently admissible: subject to the occurrence of later events after it has been obtained, in particular, developments in the course of a trial ...”

ADDED Friday 15th January 2021

R v KK [2020] 1 Cr App R 29

“The case brought into sharp focus once again the extent to which our system of jury trial depends on the members of the jury, individually and collectively, to comply with their oaths and affirmations, to follow the legal directions of the trial judge and above all, to try cases only on the evidence. It is a pretty stark reminder, if one were needed, of the ever-present risk that individual jurors may conduct their own inquiries and researches, especially online. It provides helpful practical guidance, in the event of a breach, as to how trial judges can go about putting the genie back into the bottle. And it should also serve as a salutary warning to jurors and prospective jurors about the life-changing consequences they face if they fall prey to temptation and flout the rules prohibiting internet research …”

ADDED Thursday 14th January 2021

R v D [2019] 2 Cr App R 15

“The case made clear that, where a defendant is charged with fraud by failing to disclose information, it must be shown that he or she was indeed under a legal duty to disclose the information in question ...”

ADDED Monday 4th January 2021

R v Panayi (Andrew) [2019] 2 Cr App R (S) 21

“The case related to confiscation proceedings following conviction for breach of a planning enforcement notice and is a salutary reminder of the importance of drafting charges so as to reflect the full extent of the criminality alleged ...”

ADDED Thursday 31st December 2020