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
'Attorney General seeks criminal damage clarity from Court of Appeal'
Attorney General Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP has asked the Court’s Criminal Division to consider whether claims that protesters honestly believed organisations affected by their stunts would have consented to the damage - if they had known more about the impact of climate change - can be a defence in court. This argument has been used by environmental campaign groups in the last year, resulting in acquittals for criminal damage. The Attorney General has asked the Court to provide some clarity on the law as guidance for future cases.
'New national security laws come into force'
Core measures put in place by the National Security Act passed in July come into force today and can now be used by operational partners to tackle modern-day threats against the UK. Law enforcement agencies are now able to use the new tools and modernised powers to deter, detect and disrupt threats from those acting on behalf of foreign states against the UK and its interests.
For the first time, it is an offence to be an undeclared foreign spy materially assisting the activities of a foreign intelligence service in the UK. Anyone caught carrying out such offences can be charged and prosecuted... Further activities which can now be put before the UK courts includes updated espionage offences, including the theft of trade secrets, foreign interference, including in the UK’s political system, sabotage, and modern ways of attempting to access the UK’s most sensitive sites...
'Latest criminal court statistics show 'fundamental right to access to justice is at stake', Law Society says'
The Law Society has described the criminal justice system as ‘withering at the root’ following the release of the latest criminal courts statistics. Fewer than half (42%) of trials listed at magistrates' court were effective, according to the figures covering July to September 2023. During that same period, only 41% of trials were effective at Crown court. At the end of September, 352,945 cases were outstanding at the magistrates’ courts, 3% up on the previous quarter. The number of trials listed totalled 19,664, a 14% decrease on the previous year. In Crown court, 66,547 cases were outstanding at the end of September, 3% up on the previous quarter and a 6% increase on the previous year. Outstanding cases that have been open for a year or more rose to 17,790, making up 28% of outstanding cases...
'Lawyers must email ahead to enter Old Bailey under new security measures'
New security measures will require legal professionals wishing to enter the Old Bailey to email the court a pre-attendance notification, it has been revealed. On City of London Police advice, the court said today that court users, including counsel, clerks, solicitors, noting briefs and others will be required to send an email – a security pre-attendance notification or accreditation – if they wish to enter the Central Criminal Court. The notification will be valid for the duration of a trial. For hearings, the notification will be valid only for the duration of the hearing. In addition to the pre-attendance notification or accreditation, which must be sent to the court’s security email address using an official business email, legal professionals must have a form of identification for verification...
'Teenagers convicted of Brianna Ghey murder can be named, judge rules'
Two teenagers found guilty of the “senseless” murder of 16-year-old Brianna Ghey can be named when they are sentenced in the new year, a judge has ruled. Mrs Justice Yip on Thursday said there was a strong public interest in lifting orders preventing the identification of the killers, known as Girl X and Boy Y. But she said reporting restrictions would remain until the sentencing date of 2 February.
Brianna was stabbed with a hunting knife 28 times in her head, neck, chest and back after being lured to a park in Culcheth, a village near Warrington, Cheshire, on the afternoon of 11 February.A four-week trial at Manchester crown court heard that the killers, now 16, had a fascination for violence, torture and murder and had a “thirst for killing”. Brianna was described as “witty, funny and fearless”. She was transgender but that was ruled out as a motive by police and prosecutors, who said that if the pair had not killed Brianna, they would have killed one of four other teenagers on a list of people they did not like. The killers, who blamed each other for the murder, were described during the trial as intelligent, “high functioning” and from normal backgrounds.
Representations to lift the killers’ anonymity were made on behalf of the media by the UK news agency PA Media and ITV. It was argued that the case was an unusual one and would benefit from public scrutiny. Both the killers could be identified once they turn 18, the court heard...
'Solicitor knew about a bug in the Post Office Horizon IT system before Seema Misra trial, inquiry hears'
A senior Post Office solicitor was told about dozens of issues with the computer system just days before a pregnant sub-postmistress was convicted, the Post Office Inquiry heard this week. Rob Wilson, former head of criminal prosecutions, received an email on 8 October 2010 stating that ‘discrepancies’ with the Horizon IT system had been detected at 40 branches. This bug had caused an apparent loss of £20,000 to show up on the system.
The email, labelled as of ‘high importance and confidential’ was sent by a member of the Post Office security team and was disclosed to the inquiry for the first time when Wilson gave evidence for a second time on Tuesday. Wilson forwarded the email and its contents to two solicitor colleagues, Jarnail Singh and Juliet McFarlane, but did not disclose it to defence solicitors or defendants. All three solicitors have been reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, although any potential disciplinary proceedings against them have been put on hold at the request of the inquiry. The trial of Seema Misra started three days after Wilson received and passed on the email outlining the discrepancies with the branch accounts. Despite arguing that Horizon had caused shortfalls in her branch account, she was found guilty of theft and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment...
Cases
R v Ames [2023] EWCA Crim 1463
... This is his appeal against conviction and sentence by leave of the full court. On granting leave to appeal against conviction the full court stated that: "The question that arises on this application may be expressed quite shortly: what is the necessary ingredient or ingredients of an offence under section 4(1) of the Fraud Act [2006] that one finds in section 4(1)(c)?"...
... The appellant's position is that subsections 4(1)(c)(i) and 4(1)(c)(ii) each constitutes a separate legal ingredient of the offence; where more than one intent is alleged, the jury must be directed that they need to be unanimous on at least one intention before finding the defendant guilty (a Brown direction, named after the decision in R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115 (Brown)). It is said that in failing to give such a direction, the Judge materially misdirected the jury. The respondent's position is that a defendant's intention for the purpose of section 4(1)(c) is properly to be regarded as a single overarching ingredient of a section 4 offence. Subsections 4(1)(c)(i) and 4(1)(c)(ii) set out the different ways in which the essential element of intent is made out. There was no misdirection by the Judge...
... For the reasons we have given, as a matter of statutory interpretation, consistent with the authorities referred to above, section 4(1)(c) is properly to be regarded as containing a single ingredient of the offence, namely intention (by means of (dishonest) abuse of position) to cause financial gain or loss (or exposure to risk of loss), in other words to have a financial impact. Whether the financial impact intended is gain, loss, or both, does not matter. Subsections 4(1)(c)(i) and 4(1)(c)(ii) are merely the mechanisms through which the jury may be satisfied of the single ingredient of intention in section 4(1)(c). On this basis, there was no need for a Brown direction as a matter of legal principle without more. There may be factual scenarios (albeit likely to be rare) in which the precise mechanism for intent under section 4(1)(c) is relevant and where a Brown direction may be appropriate. However, this is not such a case. Neither subsection (i) or (ii) gave rise to a different defence and this was not a case where distinct events or incidents were alleged for the purpose of either subsection. No prejudice arose to the appellant as a result of the absence of a Brown direction...
R v Osman [2023] EWCA Crim 1560
... In October 2022 the appellant was the driver of a car which was stopped by police in Swansea. A man called Lafferty was his front seat passenger. A mobile phone was found in the front passenger footwell. Stored within it were messages which plainly related to the supply of controlled drugs in June 2022, at a time when the Glastonbury Festival was taking place. The appellant worked as a steward at that festival...
...We would summarise the effect of those decisions as follows: 1. Paragraphs (b) and (c) under section 4(3) of the 1971 Act create two distinct offences. 2. Where an offence contrary to paragraph (b) is charged, the prosecution must prove that the enterprise in which the accused was concerned was the supplying of controlled drugs and not merely the making of an offer to supply. 3. On such a charge, the jury must not be directed in terms which suggest that it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused was concerned in either the supply or an offer to supply controlled drugs. 4. However, supply is a broad term: it is not confined to actual delivery or a past supply, but rather it refers to the entire process of supply...
We therefore accept Mr Radcliffe's submission that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove in this case that the appellant was concerned in an enterprise which could properly be described as the supply of controlled drugs. The question then becomes whether, on the evidence before the jury, it was properly open to the jury to find that offence proved. To that question there can, in our view, only be one answer. Once the jury were sure that it was the appellant, and not anyone else, who sent the relevant messages, then the concession made throughout almost the entire trial that the appellant was thereby guilty of the offences charged was entirely realistic. We agree with Miss Walton that a careful fact-specific assessment of the evidence in a particular case is required. Here the messages were not an abstract offer of a supply which might or might not take place, of a substance which might or might not be a controlled drug, and might or might not be a controlled drug of the kind offered. They were the clearest indication that the appellant was actively concerned in the supply of drugs, stating what stock he had available at a given time, stating the price for which he would supply it and also eliciting from Not Abdul Kadir a response requiring immediate delivery of one of the drugs available. In those circumstances, the jury were entitled to return the verdicts they did and the conviction is safe...