About
A free weekly collection of criminal law links - for practitioners, law students, and anyone with an interest in the criminal justice system of England and Wales.
Curated by Sam Willis, a barrister at 5 King's Bench Walk.
News
New Attorney General
The Prime Minister has appointed Suella Braverman MP as Attorney General. The Attorney General will oversee the work of the Law Officers Departments which include the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office, and the Government Legal Department and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.
End to Automatic Early Release of Terrorists
Emergency legislation introduced in Parliament today (11 February 2020) will end the automatic early release of terrorist offenders, as the government takes decisive action to protect the public and keep our streets safe... The new rules will apply to offenders sentenced for crimes such as training for terrorism, membership of a proscribed organisation, and the dissemination of terrorist publications.
The move will end the current automatic half-way release for offenders who receive standard determinate sentences. Instead, they will be forced to spend a minimum of two-thirds of their term behind bars before being referred to the Parole Board for consideration. It will mean around 50 terrorist prisoners already serving affected sentences will see their automatic release halted.
The Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill can be found here.
'Crown court data being twisted to mask reality, claims criminal bar'
Government figures are being manipulated to suggest courts are under less strain than is actually the case, the Criminal Bar Association has claimed.
Chair of the CBA, Caroline Goodwin QC, said there is an increasing trend to list trials as mentions to 'avoid the trap of being a trial which is not reached’. Mentions are short pre-trial court appearances. In her weekly message to members, Goodwin said: 'For those of you in the know, that is a sin. This approach utterly undermines and devalues the purpose of these figures.'
Cases
Miller v College of Policing [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin)
Between November 2018 and January 2019 the Claimant, Harry Miller, posted a number of tweets on Twitter about transgender issues... A police officer visited the Claimant’s place of work to speak to him about his tweets. They subsequently spoke on the telephone. What was said is disputed, but in his judgment Mr Justice Julian Knowles finds that the officer left the Claimant with the impression that he might be prosecuted if he continued to tweet ([100]).
Mr Justice Julian Knowles concludes that the Claimant’s tweets were lawful and that there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet ([271]). He finds the combination of the police visiting the Claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect.
R v RT & Anor [2020] EWCA Crim 155
This appeal raises an issue about whether the trial judge was entitled to continue a trial in circumstances where a prosecution witness, aged 16 years who had been diagnosed with ADHD, who had given evidence in chief and who had been cross-examined in part on behalf of one appellant, became distressed and refused to continue to give evidence.
In our judgment the trial judge was entitled to continue the trial of RT and Mr Stuchfield even though Ms F was not available for the whole of the cross examination on behalf of Mr Stuchfield and there was no cross examination on behalf of RT. This was because the trial remained fair for both RT and Mr Stuchfield in the particular circumstances of this case. The relevant circumstances included the facts that first the jury had seen Ms F give evidence and be cross examined at least in part. Secondly there was some unfortunate questioning of Ms F which explained her refusal to stay for the whole of the cross examination, although we make it clear that the trial judge found that this questioning was not carried out deliberately to provoke the witness, and counsel for RT did not have the opportunity to carry out any questioning. Thirdly there was material which was admitted, including the Facebook messages, which enabled the jury to make a fair assessment of the credibility and reliability of Ms F's evidence. Fourthly Ms F's evidence could be assessed in the context of the other evidence which included: DNA evidence against RT; evidence about earlier social media conversations about a plan to commit a robbery; CCTV evidence showing the movements of RT and Mr Stuchfield; and Mr Stuchfield's letter sent after the offence. Fifthly the judge gave proper directions to the jury identifying the limitations of Ms F's evidence.