Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Airbus SE, Southwark Crown Court (Case No: U20200108)

“The case concerned systemic corruption across multiple jurisdictions by one of the two largest multi-national corporations in the aerospace industry. It prompted the court to review the legal framework for Deferred Prosecution Agreements, including the principles to be derived from the earlier authorities, and it resulted in a financial penalty of more than €990 million (nearly €1 billion) - a figure greater than the total of all the sums paid pursuant to previous DPAs and more than double the total of fines paid in respect of all criminal conduct in England and Wales in the calendar year 2018 ...”

ADDED Thursday 15th October 2020

R v Smith (Andrew) [2020] 1 Cr App R 23

“This was a ‘rogue trader’ case. It arose from the activities of a man with a string of convictions for fraud, who had entered into a contract with an elderly gentleman to undertake some gardening work but where subsequent inquiries by Trading Standards suggested that he had deliberately and dishonestly failed to tell his customer about the right under the Consumer Protection Regulations to cancel the contract. The main issue on the appeal was whether what was said to be a forged cancellation notice, allegedly created after the event to cover his tracks, was capable of being an article which he had in his possession or under his control ‘for use in the course of or in connection with fraud’ …”

ADDED Wednesday 14th October 2020

R (Elgizouli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 3 All ER 1

“The judgments related to the notorious case of the so-called Isis Beatles,who had been implicated in gruesome crimes in Syria and the international efforts to bring them to justice. The Supreme Court had to consider, firstly, whether there is any principle of common law which prevents HM Government providing to the authorities of another jurisdiction information which might lead to the imposition the death penalty in that jurisdiction and, secondly, the import and effect of Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 governing transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation …”

ADDED Tuesday 13th October 2020

R v Richards (Tony) (Hunt intervening) [2020] 1 WLR 3344

“The case concerned the secret filming of consensual sexual activity by one of the participants without the knowledge of the other and prompted the Court of Appeal to consider whether that constituted voyeurism within the meaning of sections 67 & 68 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Whilst the particular facts involved escorts whom a man had paid for sex being secretly recorded by him without their knowledge for his own later gratification, it would appear to have wider implications in the context of so-called revenge porn and the uploading of secretly recorded footage to the internet ...”

ADDED Monday 12th October 2020

R v Broughton (Ceon) [2020] EWCA Crim 1093

“The case related to the death of a young woman at a music festival after being given a cocktail of drugs by her boyfriend, who then proceeded to photograph and film the victim as her condition gradually deteriorated. It prompted the Court of Appeal to consider the law of gross negligence manslaughter, in particular the test of causation in cases based on a failure to give or obtain medical treatment ...”

ADDED Friday 9th October 2020

R (Iqbal) v Canterbury Crown Court [2020] 2 Cr App R 1

“The case was concerned with the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court to entertain a judicial review application in relation to a refusal of bail by the Crown Court and prompted the court to review the domestic and European provisions, to synthesise the principles to be derived from the earlier authorities and to give guidance about the approach to be taken both by the criminal courts and by defence solicitors where a person has previously been ‘released under investigation’ and not on bail ...”

ADDED Thursday 8th October 2020

R (Defending Christian Arabs) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court & Tony Blair [2020] EWHC 1850 (Admin)

“The case concerned an attempt to bring a private prosecution against the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as a result of the alleged deployment of chemical weapons by British armed forces during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It prompted the court to consider the approach a magistrate should take to a request for the issue of a summons and to focus, in particular, on the question of the magistrates’ territorial jurisdiction, the concept of improper ulterior motive, the issue of delay and the ingredients of the offence of administering a noxious substance under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.”

ADDED Wednesday 7th October 2020

Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Environment Agency [2020] EWCA Crim 827

“The case concerned the trans-frontier shipment of waste and the application of the EU and UK regulations. Specifically, the role of the jury in determining whether particular waste is caught by the export ban on certain types of waste to certain countries and the circumstances in which household waste can be re-categorised as material outwith the prohibition. The case also provided a helpful illustration of where the prosecution will be permitted to adduce bad character evidence in order to correct a false impression given by the defendant ...”

ADDED Tuesday 6th October 2020

R (Bamber) v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] EWHC 1391 (Admin)

“The judgment concerned one of the most notorious murder cases of recent times and prompted the court to consider the scope of the prosecution’s disclosure obligations post-conviction as well as the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in correcting miscarriages of justice ...”

ADDED Friday 2nd October 2020

National Crime Agency v Hajiyeva [2020] 1 WLR 3209

“The case concerned the approach to be taken to the grant of an Unexplained Wealth Order and involved, in particular: an examination of the concept of a ‘Politically Exposed Person’; the so-called ‘income’ question as to whether a person’s wealth appears to be unexplained; and also whether there is any scope for the operation of the privilege against self-incrimination and spousal privilege …”

ADDED Thursday 1st October 2020