Issue 226  8th January 2022

The Attorney General is "carefully considering" whether to refer the Bristol Edward Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal. Four people were cleared of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court for toppling the monument in June 2020 during a Black Lives Matter protest. Suella Braverman said trial by jury was "an important guardian of liberty" but the result was "causing confusion". The referral would not affect the acquittal, she added. The verdict cannot be overturned and the defendants cannot be retried without fresh evidence. Ms Braverman said she would decide whether to use powers that, as Attorney General, allow her to seek a Court of Appeal hearing so senior judges "have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases"...

Under the changes, victims of domestic abuse will be allowed more time to report incidents of common assault or battery against them. Currently, prosecutions must commence within six months of the offence. Instead, this requirement will be moved to six months from the date the incident is formally reported to the police – with an overall time limit of two years from the offence to bring a prosecution...

Meanwhile, taking non-consensual photographs or video recordings of breastfeeding mothers will be made a specific offence punishable by up to two years in prison. It covers situations where the motive is to obtain sexual gratification, or to cause humiliation, distress or alarm...

One in five criminal cases is dropped despite a suspect being identified due to the apparent reluctance of victims to support a prosecution. Nearly one million offenders known to police escaped justice in a single year as a result and campaigners say the figure highlights a crisis of confidence in the criminal justice system.

More than 40 per cent of investigations involving rape or violence against the person — which includes domestic violence complaints — and two thirds involving sexual offences did not proceed because of a lack of victim co-operation. Victims were far more likely to support prosecutions in other areas such as drug offending, robbery and weapons offences...

In amendments tabled to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill today, the Government has set out measures to strengthen law enforcement for hare coursing by increasing penalties, introducing new criminal offences and creating new powers for the courts to disqualify convicted offenders from owning or keeping dogs – this includes an order to reimburse the costs incurred when dogs are seized in kennels...

The proposals include:

• Increasing the maximum penalty for trespassing in pursuit of game under the Game Acts (the Game Act 1831 and the Night Poaching Act 1828) to an unlimited fine and introducing – for the first time – the possibility of up to six months’ imprisonment.
• Two new criminal offences: firstly, trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare; and secondly, being equipped to trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare both punishable on conviction by an unlimited fine and/or up to six months’ imprisonment.
• New powers for the courts to order, on conviction, the reimbursement of costs incurred by the police in kennelling dogs seized in connection with a hare coursing-related offence.
• New powers for the courts to make an order, on conviction, disqualifying an offender from owning or keeping a dog.

Lawyers have expressed their dismay at reports of judges demanding to see proof of positive Covid tests before agreeing to a remote or adjourned hearing. A memo shared online purportedly from the recorder of Winchester, which would cover both Winchester and Salisbury Crown courts, states that no application for an adjournment will be considered without ‘some evidence’ supporting a positive Covid test by a defendant or an advocate. The same direction was said to apply to any application for remote attendance at a hearing.

In light of current difficulties obtaining PCR tests, the memo said the court would accept a photograph of a positive lateral flow test as evidence. But advocates on social media have asked why such evidence needs to be provided and suggested that judges are calling into question their honesty and integrity...