We regularly review cases and comment on those we find may be of interest. Below you will find our latest case updates.
The Court of Appeal looked at the scope of the offence created by section 44(2) read with section 44(1)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The Court of Appeal considered whether the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for those convicted of certain offences required a Court order or ruling and whether certificates issued under s.92 of the 2003 Act could be appealed.
This case concerned the elements that had to be made out for an individual to be proved to have had possession of a digital file. This arose in the context of an appeal against convictions for possession of indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and possession of extreme pornographic images, contrary to section 63(1) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
The Supreme Court held that the principle that the court must read words requiring mens rea into a statutory section is only one of statutory interpretation. It does not empower the court to make different provision for mens rea than is unambiguously provided for in the wording of the statute.
The Court held that Section 1(1) of the Infanticide Act 1938 does not require the consequences of giving birth to be the sole cause of a disturbance of the mind, provided they are an operating and substantial cause.
There can be an abuse of process through entrapment by non-state actors, but such an abuse of process argument succeeding will be rare indeed.
Duty on police to investigate
The offence of blackmail can be committed by sending a demand whilst outside of England and Wales.
The High Court has ruled that Mr Love should not be extradited to the US to face charges as it would be “oppressive” for him to be tried in the US, but not the UK.
Self-defence, or defence of another, is available as a defence to a charge of obstructing a police officer under s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996.
The defence of insanity is available on a charge of harassment contrary to Section 2(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
When considering how to adduce apparently similar evidence, care is needed in deciding on what basis the evidence should be admitted or excluded.
The test for ‘Dishonesty’ as established by R v Ghosh  QB 1053 is modified by the Supreme Court.
A terminatory ruling in a murder case was upheld, despite highly suspicious circumstantial evidence, where there were too many possible inferences from the circumstantial evidence for a jury to safely convict.
Goods authorised by the trademark holder for manufacture but not for sale fell within section 92(1) of the trade Marks Act 1994
Advocates should be more vigilant when conducting sentencing exercises in the Crown Court, especially specially when considering summary only offences.
< Previous [1 of 9] Next >
At every stage in our history we have championed equal opportunities. We have also earned a reputation for excellence, whether defending or prosecuting and many of our former members have gone on to be Judges and even a Judge Advocate General.