Search

The article comments on the sexual assault-related court cases R. v. CB and R. v. Mohammed in the British Court of Appeal Criminal Division wherein digitally-stored communications and evidence held by the complainants and other prosecution witnesses were destroyed.

The article discusses the case R. v Hamberger (Martin) of Court of Appeal of Great Britain, wherein the defendant with an acute cardiac condition was charged with conspiracy to supply cannabis in 2012, and highlighted legal technicalities and uncommonly invoked procedures when a defendant is ill.

The article presents Great Britain Court of Appeal case R. v Denham (John) which deals with sexual offences against a baby boy, in this case the defendant were convicted of conspiracy for sexually assaulting a child under 13, further defendants appealed against conviction, and same was dismissed.

The article looks at the decision of Great Britain's Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the case R. v AD regarding the statements of offence mistakenly charging indecent assaults against woman rather than man under wrong section of correct statute. It mentions that the child sex offences with the criminal evidence for the indictments. It also mentions that the mistake fatal to safety of convictions.

The article reflects on the decision of Great Britain Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the case R. v DS and TS in which two women was alleged for rape, falsely imprisoned and sexually assaulted in the course of abusive relationships. It mentions the case management as defendants charged with serious sexual offences and the prosecution providing piecemeal disclosure throughout trial. It also mentions that the possibility of fair trial for staying proceedings on ground of abuse of process.

The article reports on the decision of the British Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the case 'R. v Quillan (Gary)' in which the court reserved judgment of a court concerning general procedural guidance about the management of legal issues in complex cases. It informs that the case had been brought under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which provided for appeals by the British Crown against a ruling by the trial judge which effectively terminated the proceeding.

The author reflects on the decision of the Great Britain Court of Appeal in the case D v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in which a 14-year-old girl was detained at police station suffered from sexual and physical abuse. Topics discussed include removal of girl's clothing on grounds of suicide risk, breaching of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice and the right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Right.

The article looks at the R. v. Sakyi (Emmanuel Adade) court case of a British Court of Appeal in which defendant was charged with possessing a prohibited firearm and ammunition. Topics discussed include laws related to possession of any firearm or any ammunition, the defendant's silence in police interview, and the right to silence in the country.

The article discusses the Great Britain Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) case R. v. Montague (Damien John) wherein defendant is charged with possession of articles for use in fraud on the basis of joint enterprise. Topics discussed include accessory being liable to be treated as a principal offender under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, and case being left to the jury breaching substantive assurance given by the court.

The article offers information about the case R. v. P that was executed in the Criminal Division of Great Britain Court of Appeal. Topics discussed include role of cross examination of the evidences for sexual assault, examination of the evidences for abortion and evidences of indecent assault. It further discusses the importance of Youth, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

The article offers information about the case R. v. SO that was executed in the Criminal Division of Great Britain Court of Appeal. Topics discussed include claims against the defendant for affray and assault after attacking police, role of psychiatric evidences in proving the ill mental and psychological conditions of defendant and laws and regulations made for managing the criteria of self-defense.

The article offers information about the court case R. v. ITN News which was executed in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, Great Britain. Topics discussed include criminal trial made for prohibiting the publication of the photographs of adult witness and children, reporting restrictions and execution of the criminal trials for public interest. It further discusses the impact of publication of photographs on the witness safety and protection.

The article offers information about the court cases R. v. Moore (Mia) and R. v. Burrows (Ben Peter) that were executed in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of Great Britain. Topics discussed include entrapment of the defendants supplying drugs to the undercover police officers, abuse of process and illegal supply of the firearms and drugs. It further informs about the dismissal of the defendants motion of class certification.

The article discusses the Great Britain Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) case R. v. Chinn (Michael) which deals with an alleged violation of the nation's Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as the admissibility of hearsay evidence under Section 120(4) and 120(6) of the Great Britain's Criminal Justice Act 2003. A witnesses' ability to refresh his memory in a criminal proceeding is also addressed.

The article discusses a court case in which defendants were accused of violation of section 46 of Great Britain's Serious Crime Act of 2007 for supply of chemicals and Pharmaceuticals that comes under the Class A or Class B of controlled drugs. As mentioned, the Court of Appeal dismissed defendants' submission that the Act is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The article discusses the Great Britain Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) case R. v. F which deals with allegations of buggery and indecent assault, as well as a claim of abuse of process on the grounds of a delay. The complainant in this case did not report the alleged sexual abuse in a timely manner and the defendant filed a motion for a stay of the proceedings based on that fact.

The article discusses the British Court of Appeal cases R. v Ahmed (Rangzieb) and R. v Ahmed (Habib) wherein the defendants described the application to stay prosecution as abuse of process. Terrorist offences were charged against the British citizens under the Terrorism Act 2000. The first defendant based his claim on the torture he suffered while being held in custody in Pakistan. The court cited the requirements for the jurisdiction to stay for abuse of process to be exercised.

The article discusses the British court case R. vs. P. wherein the Court of Appeal ruled that social service files relating to the plaintiffs' sexual abuse lawsuit against their father should have been disclosed to the defense. The case was referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal eight years after the trial on the ground that the files were capable of undermining the prosecution's case or assisting the defense. The Court held that the undisclosed material contradicted several assertions made by the plaintiffs at trial.

The article discusses the court case R. v A, B, C and D in which the British Court of Appeal held that defendant D could be guilty of murder on the basis of joint enterprise liability if he participated in the joint enterprise of crime X. It cites other court cases including Badza in 2009 and Lewis in 2010. A commentary is included wherein the author defines joint enterprise and comments on the failure to mention the requirement for proof of a murder.

The author reflects on the decision of the Great Britain Court of Appeal in the case R. v King (David Novakovic) regarding the Circumstantial evidence. Topics discussed include defendant had killed the deceased to prevent the discovery, need of alternative conviction for various pieces of evidence on which the prosecution relies and jury's assessment of the credibility of the witness and their view as to the plausibility.

The article looks at the R. v White case of British Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in which the defendant pleaded guilty to three offences of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Topics discussed include the definition of pecuniary advantage, offences of obtaining a money transfer, and duty to borrower to inform the mortgage lender about their unemployment.

The author discusses Great Britain Court of Appeal case R. v. Venclovas (Rimas) wherein defendant was convicted for murdering his divorced wife and mentions appeal on the ground of being from foreign national. Topics discussed include arrest of defendant in Lithuania who was extradited to England, investigation showing defendant's van travelling from Lithuania to the victim's house, and a prosecution to proceed for an offence of murder committed in a convention country.

The article discusses the court case R. v McKenzie wherein a defendant was charged with counts of indecent assault of a boy and whose mental health deteriorated during trial at British Crown Court. The Registrar of Criminal Appeals ruled that the defendant was mischarged, as Section 14(1) of the Sexual Offenses Act of 1956 criminalised indecent assault on a woman. A Court of Appeal upheld the Registrar and rejected the Crown's pleading that the court has the power to correct a formal defect.