R v Andrewes (Jon) [2020] EWCA Crim 1055

“This case arose from a fairly extreme version of what is sometimes euphemistically described as CV padding. In short, the defendant had obtained a succession of prestigious public sector positions on the basis of application forms in which he described his educational qualifications and professional career in a way which bore absolutely no relation to reality. This was one of the scenarios in relation to which the Supreme Court in their seminal judgment and R v Waya had expressly left open the question of how the concept of proportionality should operate in the context of the confiscation regime. It prompted the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to conduct a comprehensive review of the authorities both before and after Waya and to lay down clear and practical guidance as to how a judge dealing with confiscation proceedings should approach the whole question of proportionality ...”

ADDED Thursday 12th November 2020

R (Jordan) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2020] EWHC 2274 (Admin)

“The case was concerned with a search warrant executed at residential premises. In support of the application for the warrant the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police had placed before the Justice of the Peace certain material which, he later contended, attracted Public Interest Immunity and ought not to be disclosed to the homeowner. The matter came before the Administrative Court after the homeowner issued an application to judicially review the warrant. In handing down his judgment on 21 August 2020, Chamberlain J took the opportunity to address three important aspects of such challenges. He reiterated the substantive issues to be considered when deciding whether to uphold an assertion of Public Interest Immunity. He reviewed the recent authorities on the approach to be taken by the court in deciding whether to uphold a Public Interest Immunity claim in the context of the judicial review of a search warrant. And he gave practical guidance on the mechanics of how the substantive judicial review hearing should be conducted where a PII claim has already been upheld and where the material attracting PII is to be considered in a Closed Material Proceeding or CMP ...”

ADDED Wednesday 11th November 2020

R v Jelf (Nathan) [2020] 2 Cr App R (S) 52

“The case concerned football hooliganism and the imposition of football banning orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989. It illustrated some of the difficulties of the highly technical provisions which make fine distinctions which are not always easy to follow or apply. Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) exercised its extensive powers to substitute a sentence or other order which might have been imposed or made by the court below had the sentencing judge correctly directed himself or herself on the law ...”

ADDED Tuesday 10th November 2020

Official Receiver v Skeene & Bowers [2020] EWHC 1252 (Ch)

“The case was concerned with alleged Ponzi-style fraud based on a supposedly ethical investment scheme in respect of teak plantations in Brazil. Investors were alleged to have lost around £30 million and the allegations led to both disqualification proceedings against the directors of the company in question and a criminal investigation and prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office. The present judgment related to an application by the Official Receiver to the Bankruptcy Court for permission to supply to the SFO an affidavit and exhibit made by one of the two company directors in opposition to the disqualification proceedings ...”

ADDED Monday 9th November 2020

R (Mahmood) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2020] 3 WLR 723

“This was another case on the foreign criminal provisions in the deportation regime. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) was faced with three conjoined appeals, arising from decisions of the First-tier Tribunal about a range of criminality from child sex offences to immigration and identity fraud to a road rage incident. It prompted a review of the general principles as to when a particular offence or offences will be regarded as having ‘caused serious harm’ for the purposes of those provisions ...”

ADDED Friday 6th November 2020

R v Mohamadi (Hamid) [2020] EWCA Crim 327

“The case involved a gang rape committed on a 16-year old girl by a group of men from whom she asked directions when she was on the way home by herself in the early hours from a night out. The appellant, who had come to the United Kingdom from Afghanistan only the year before, claimed to have played no part in or to have been present at or even known about the rape. He did, however, say that he had been very drunk on the night in question. The issue on the appeal was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury specifically to consider the possible effect of alcohol on the appellant's state of mind if they concluded, contrary to his evidence, that he had been present as a bystander in the room where the rapes took place. And whether the judge’s failure to give the so-called intoxication direction in those circumstances affected the safety of the conviction ...”

ADDED Thursday 5th November 2020

Hunt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] 4 WLR 81

“This was a costs application arising from another judgment, which was itself the subject of an earlier video case review in this series. The claimant had, with the backing of the Centre for Women’s Justice, applied to judicially review a decision of the DPP not to prosecute a man for voyeurism and had then intervened in an unrelated case raising the identical legal issue in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Her claim for the costs of that intervention prompted a comprehensive review of the provisions and the authorities on interveners, their costs and the meaning of the phrase ‘of or incidental to proceedings’ ...”

ADDED Wednesday 4th November 2020

R (Roberts) v Leicester Crown Court [2020] EWHC 1783 (Admin)

“This was a case about a burglary in student accommodation. It gave rise to a trial in the magistrates court resulting in conviction, an unsuccessful appeal to the Crown Court, a refusal by the Crown Court to state a case and then an application for judicial review of that refusal to state a case. The Administrative Court had to consider the law on a number of discrete issues, including hearsay evidence where a witness is overseas; the potential admissibility of pre-trial case management forms; the recusal of a judge for bias; the circumstances in which a court can properly refuse to state a case; and whether, where there has been a wrongful refusal, the matter has to be remitted for a case to be stated or can instead be dealt with by way of judicial review ...”

ADDED Tuesday 3rd November 2020

R (Highbury Poultry Farm Produce Ltd) v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] UKSC 39

“The case was concerned with an animal welfare prosecution and, specifically, the question whether the provisions under which charges had been laid created offences of strict liability. It prompted the Supreme Court to go back to first principles in examining the relationship between EU and domestic UK regulations. The court referred, for example, to the 2012 judgment in the case of Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority (Nos 1 & 2) on the dangers of applying English principles of statutory construction to the interpretation of an EU treaty, EU Regulations or Directives or an EU framework decision. And the court also reviewed European Union law principles of legislative interpretation ...”

ADDED Monday 2nd November 2020

R v RN [2020] EWCA Crim 937

“This was a shaken baby prosecution in which the court had to consider the circumstances in which a jury may be asked to confirm that the verdict delivered by their foreman in open court does accurately record the outcome of their deliberations. It emphasised once again the central importance of the part played by the jury in Crown Court proceedings and the extent to which they are depended on to understand and follow the judge’s directions …”

ADDED Friday 30th October 2020