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
'Prisons to carry out extra checks before releasing inmates'
Extra checks will be carried out in prisons across England and Wales from Monday after a migrant sex offender was released in error last week. The government has ordered governors to carry out new procedures to avoid a repeat of Hadush Kebatu's mistaken release from HMP Chelmsford on Friday, which led to a manhunt and his eventual arrest in London on Sunday. Justice Secretary David Lammy will face questions on Monday after updating Parliament on an independent inquiry into how Kebatu was set free rather than deported...
The extra checks have been criticised by senior prison staff, who told BBC News they will increase workload and put more pressure on a system already struggling to cope. Kebatu's release has led to renewed focus on the state of HM Prison Service, which the government has described as "broken". The number of prisoners who have been released mistakenly has risen sharply, with 262 let out in error between April 2024 and March 2025, up from 115 over the same period a year earlier. Charlie Taylor, HM chief inspector of prisons, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme "something is going badly wrong" with the prison system, pointing to the rising number of mistaken releases. Asked about the new checklist prison staff will need to follow before releasing an inmate, Mr Taylor said it had not been shared with him in full so he could not say if it was proportionate. But he said inexperienced staff were being left with large caseloads of work due to the high "churn" of people coming through the prison system, adding the situation was made more difficult by the implementation of various early release schemes rolled out in recent years...
'Review of stalking laws follows super-complaint'
An independent review of stalking laws will examine whether current laws are strong enough to protect victims and ensure perpetrators are punished, the government has said. The review, led by criminal barrister Richard Wright KC, will consider how stalking and harassment laws work together and whether legislation sufficiently defines and addresses stalking behaviour. It will also determine whether changes in the law are necessary to aid police in better handling of stalking cases, the impact of new and emerging technology and whether the current legal framework can ‘deal with stalking behaviours facilitated by technology’. It is expected to be completed by March 2026...
The review follows a 2022 ‘super-complaint’ by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust on behalf of the National Stalking Consortium which said there was evidence that police forces ‘routinely’ fail to recognise stalking and mishandle stalking cases. The complaint led to an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the College of Policing whose findings, published last year, included a recommendation for the Home Office to change the law on stalking...
'Jurors should know what experts are paid, MPs told'
Juries should be told how much an expert witness is being paid and how many times they have appeared for either party, MPs heard this week... The call for jurors to be given more information came from Tom Hayes, the former City trader whose LIBOR rate-rigging convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court earlier this year. Alluding to his trial, Hayes declared that there was ‘a complete inequality of arms in relation to experts’. While Hayes had none, the prosecution had two, one of whom gave ‘extremely damning testimony’. Hayes added: ‘In my opinion, one thing that should be disclosed to the jury, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually recommend this, is how often an expert has been instructed by both sides. So if an expert has been instructed 30 times by the prosecution, then the jury should know that. The jury should also know how much they have been paid. As a juror, I would think that someone who gave evidence for both sides equally would probably be more credible than someone that gave evidence solely for the CPS’...
Carole McCartney, professor of law and criminal justice at the University of Leicester, said forensic scientists who give evidence in trials face consequences if they are found to have acted wrongly. ‘If they are seen to be making errors or there is criticism of their judgement, they are reported to the regulator. They are heavily regulated and do suffer consequences if they make mistakes’...
In 2011, a Law Commission report on expert evidence in criminal proceedings recommended a new admissibility test for expert evidence, new guidance for judges for applying the test, and a proper framework for screening expert evidence at the admissibility stage. Two years after the report was published, the Ministry of Justice indicated it did not intend to act on most of the recommendations...
'Lack of SQE funding turning aspiring lawyers away from criminal law'
A lack of funding support for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is turning aspiring lawyers away from criminal law, a study has warned. The research, led by Dr Susan Rockey from the University of Exeter Law School, found that without financial support to cover SQE fees, younger aspiring solicitors are being priced out of one of the profession’s most essential yet least well-paid areas. The study warns of a “looming generational crisis” in the duty solicitor scheme, which provides people detained at police stations or appearing in magistrates’ courts with access to legal advice and representation regardless of their ability to pay. But with most duty solicitors now aged 45 and over, the system’s future is at risk as senior lawyers approach retirement and too few trainees and juniors are joining to replace them...
'New report on how to reverse record numbers of people in prison awaiting trial'
Recent figures show the numbers of people in prison awaiting trial are now at record levels, making up 13% of the overall prison population. This overuse of pre-trial detention is a key driver of the prison capacity crisis, intensifying pressure on a dangerously overcrowded system, argues JUSTICE’s new report. JUSTICE previously found evidence showing people are being imprisoned awaiting trial without proper legal reasons given for the decision to hold them. Today’s report outlines urgent reforms to address these problems. Magistrates’ Courts are key to this issue, since they make most of these pre-trial detention decisions...
JUSTICE’s new report outlines urgent reforms to address problems with how magistrates’ courts decide whether to send people to prison to await trial. Drawing on evidence from more than 35 experts and stakeholders – including lawyers, magistrates, academics, and others with experience in the magistrates’ courts the report provides a clear blueprint for reducing unnecessary custodial remand, tackling inequities, and ensuring fairer, more consistent decision-making across the courts. This includes recommendations to increase the diversity of magistrates, structured guidance to promote lawful decision-making, better training and appraisals of decision-makers, and recommendations to ensure sending people to prison to await trial is treated as a last resort. The quality of magistrates’ decision making will be of even greater importance when new government plans come into effect to send more cases to magistrates’ courts and give magistrates greater sentencing powers...
The report can be read here.
'Better protection for victims at risk of violence as fee scrapped'
Ministers have today confirmed plans to scrap the Person at Risk of Violence Order fee. The move means from November, vulnerable people involved in debt proceedings will no longer have to pay £318 to have their personal details – including name and address – removed from the Insolvency Register and the official public record, the Gazette.
For women fleeing domestic abuse, having the peace of mind that their abuser can’t search public records to find their new address is invaluable – yet the steep cost is a barrier to many. Today’s announcement will mean this cost will no longer be an obstacle to their safety. The abolition of this unnecessary fee is the latest measure in the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade – and a key part of the Plan for Change to protect victims and restore faith in the justice system...
Cases
R v BVA [2025] EWCA Crim 1359
This appeal raises the question of whether lack of consent to the filming of sexual touching is capable of negating the free exercise of choice to consent to sexual touching for the purposes of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003...
... As already identified, the facts of this case give rise to novel circumstances which this court has not considered before. We approach the exercise by reference to the statutory definition, namely whether C2 agreed by choice and had the freedom and capacity to make that choice, and adopting a broad common sense yet principled approach. The question is whether a failure by the appellant to disclose to C2 the filming that took place was capable in law of negating her consent. Choice is crucial to the issue of consent. Was the filming that took place sufficiently closely connected to the sexual touching such that a lack of consent deprived C2 of her choice? Or was the filming simply part of the broad circumstances surrounding the sexual touching?...
... The filming was also integral to the sexual touching. If not the sole purpose, then a central purpose of the sexual touching was to film the sexual activity. The appellant used the phone’s camera to record (and illuminate) C2 before, during and after the touching, with the camera shots sweeping across from C2’s face, her breasts, over to the appellant’s penis and back to C2’s breasts. What was being created was a pornographic video for the appellant’s immediate and potentially future sexual gratification (and potentially the gratification of others). As the Judge commented, it transformed what might otherwise have been a transient sexual touching into a permanent medium which could be watched in the future...
... The Judge was therefore right to conclude that the filming was sufficiently closely connected to the sexual touching that a failure to disclose it was capable in law of negating consent. Using the terminology of section 74, non-disclosure would deprive C2 of the freedom to make the relevant choice. It is a conclusion that also accords with a broad common sense (yet principled) approach to the facts...
DPP v Ryan Jackson [2025] EWHC 2797 (Admin)
... The Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Appellant”) appeals by way of case stated against a decision of St Albans Magistrates’ Court (“the Magistrates”) made on 5 February 2025 that the prosecution of Mr Ryan Jackson (“the Respondent”) for common assault in a domestic abuse case was brought one day late, with the consequence that there was no jurisdiction to hear it...
... Section 49 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, by inserting section 39A into the CJA 1988, introduced a special time limit for the commencement of proceedings for offences of common assault or battery in domestic abuse cases, thereby disapplying the general six-month limitation period set out in section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 where time runs from the date of commission of the offence...
... If, as on the facts of the present case, the relevant condition (i.e. the complainant’s witness statement being given and dated) is fulfilled on the 27th day of the given month, the effect of the exclusionary rule is that time does not start running on that day (whether at 00:01 or 23:59) but begins for these purposes on the 28th day (it matters not whether at 00:01 or 23:59). The straightforward calculation thereafter is that the six months expires on the 27th day of the future month in question. Thus, the consequence of applying the exclusionary rule is that the time-limit expires on the corresponding date of the later month. This consequence, as Lord Diplock explained in Dodds, is entirely straightforward and gives the calculator no difficulty...
... The answer to the question posed to us in the Case Stated is that the Magistrates were incorrect to conclude that the period begins on the date on which the complainant made her witness statement in accordance with s. 39A(2) of the CJA 1988. Our conclusion is that this date must be excluded from account, and that the proceedings were brought in time, on the last possible day...
International
'French parliament votes to add consent to rape law after Gisèle Pelicot case'
The French parliament has voted to add consent to the country’s rape law in a historic move sparked by the mass rape of Gisèle Pelicot. The change, which will still need to be signed off by President Emmanuel Macron, will bring French legislation in line with many other European countries. French criminal law currently defines rape as any kind of sexual penetration committed using “violence, coercion, threat or surprise”. It does not specifically mention consent. But after the change the criminal code will define rape or sexual assault as “any non-consensual act”. It states consent must be “informed, specific, prior and revocable” and “cannot be inferred solely from the silence or lack of reaction of the victim”.
Other
'Solicitor who advised both prosecution witness and defendant suspended'
A solicitor who, while defending a client in criminal proceedings gave legal advice to the alleged victim in the case, was suspended for two months earlier this year, a newly published judgment has revealed... Thames Valley Police reported Daniel alleging a conflict of interest in his representation of two individuals, Persons A and B, who were in a relationship and ‘professionally known’ to Daniel. Person A was Daniel’s long-standing client. In December 2021, Person B was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Person A. The charges were classified as domestic abuse related. Daniel appeared on behalf of Person B in criminal proceedings arising from the incident in which Person A was both the complainant and the principal prosecution witness. The trial was aborted in February 2022 and Daniel withdrew from the case... Daniel argued his advice to Person A, which was recorded on a police officer’s body-worn camera after police attended her home to serve a witness summons, was ‘general in nature’ which the tribunal did not accept...
'UK national statement on signing the UN Convention against Cybercrime'
... The agreement by consensus, of the text of the of the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, just under a year ago, signalled a landmark moment for international cooperation on this critical and complex issue. I am proud that the United Kingdom has signed the Convention here in Hà Nội, in line with our international efforts to combat cybercrime. Cybercrime poses a serious and growing threat to every part of society, from private citizens to public institutions. It often targets our most vulnerable. The UK’s vision is clear: by 2030, we aim to significantly reduce the risk posed by cybercrime to our citizens and national interests.
In a globalised and interconnected world, we cannot do it alone. Tackling cybercrime globally requires a joined-up response, that brings together governments, law enforcement, civil society organisations, the tech industry and private sector partners. Together they play a critical role in effectively addressing the complex, transnational, and rapidly evolving challenges posed by cybercrime, and are often at the frontline of detecting and responding to cyberattacks...