News
Birmingham Prison: Government Takes Over
Birmingham Prison is being taken over by the government from the private firm G4S, after inspectors said it had fallen into a "state of crisis". Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke described it as the worst prison he had ever been to.
Inspectors found blood, vomit and rat droppings on the floor, sleeping staff, cockroaches and an overpowering smell of drugs. Extra staff are being brought in and the jail's capacity cut by 300.
Hillsborough Charges Against Sir Norman Bettison Dropped
A former chief inspector accused of trying to blame Liverpool fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has had all charges against him dropped.
Sir Norman Bettison, then of South Yorkshire Police, had faced four counts of misconduct in a public office. He was accused of telling lies about the "culpability of fans" and his role in the wake of the tragedy.
Prosecutors said insufficient evidence meant there was no real prospect of securing a conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said because of changes in the evidence of two witnesses, and the death of a third, it would discontinue the case.
'Let ex-offenders sit as magistrates'
Ex-offenders should be eligible to join the magistracy, the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association has told the Gazette.
Richard Monkhouse (pictured), who this month took over leadership of the country’s 23,500 justices of the peace, said he would like to see former offenders as magistrates, providing ‘their offending career wasn’t too great’. Stressing the view is personal, rather than association policy, he suggested: ‘They’d bring a bit of reality into the courtroom.’
Whether someone would be eligible, he said, would depend on the nature of their offending and how much time had passed since its commission.
Lodging Appeals with the Court of Appeal
The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has approved a change to Part 39 of the Rules that will require notice and grounds of appeal relating to appeals against conviction and sentence to be lodged directly with the Criminal Appeal Office and not the Crown Court.
The Rule change is expected to come into effect on 1 October 2018.
Inside the Court of Appeal
Documentary telling the human stories at the heart of cases heard at the Court of Appeal.
Cases
3D-Printed Knuckleduster Conviction
A man who was found with a knuckle duster created using a 3D printer has been given a suspended prison sentence today (22 August).
Alex Scott, of the CPS, said: “This was an unusual case. Adrian Grey claimed this 3D printed knuckle duster was just a toy because it was plastic. The CPS presented evidence to the court, including the weapon itself, and showed it could cause serious harm if used maliciously."
Cyprian Okoro (No 3) v R [2018] EWCA Crim 1929
We are clear that the statute requires proof by the Crown of possession of the pornography or images of child abuse, as a preliminary step before the burden of proof shifts to the accused, to establish the statutory defences. An accused cannot be convicted in relation to material of which he was genuinely totally unaware. Nor could a defendant be said to be in possession of a digital file if it was in practical terms impossible for him to access that file. However, for these statutory purposes we are clear that possession is established if the accused can be shown to have been aware of a relevant digital file or package of files which he has the capacity to access, even if he cannot be shown to have opened or scrutinised the material. That represents the closest possible parallel to the test laid down in the authorities set out above, and appears to us to be consistent with the criminal law of possession in other fields, such as unlawful possession of drugs.
It follows that in this case, two elements had to be made out in order for an individual to have possession: (1) the images must have been within the appellant's custody or control, i.e. so that he was capable of accessing them; and (2) he must have known that he possessed an image or a group of images. It is clear that knowledge of the content of those images is not required to make out the basic ingredients of the offence; instead that issue is dealt with by the statutory defences. Where unsolicited images are sent on WhatsApp, and automatically downloaded to the phone's memory, it is highly likely that the first element will be fulfilled. The second element will depend on whether the defendant knew that he received an image or images.