CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Judge Wall QC)
13 February 2020
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of two young offenders for conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial judge had been entitled to continue with the trial after a 16-year-old prosecution witness with ADHD, who had given evidence in chief and who had been cross-examined in part on behalf of one of the accused, became distressed and refused to continue to give evidence.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Wendy Joseph QC)
12 February 2020
The court upheld a conviction for conspiracy to possess prohibited firearms with intent to endanger life in the case of an offender who had been involved in the importation of firearms, concealed in soft toys, from the US. It could not be said that the judge had erred in directions given to the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence and hearsay evidence.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Munro QC)
5 December 2019
When dismissing an appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to corrupt, the Court of Appeal made general observations on the purpose and nature of the summing-up of facts and the scope of a trial judge’s task in that respect.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Nicklin J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
26 November 2019
An individual’s conviction for two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue were safe. Although there had been failures in the prosecution’s disclosure process, they had not been in bad faith and they had been cured by the time of the trial. The prosecution had also been entitled not to investigate further the allegation that there had been another conspirator, due to insufficient evidence against him.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, William Davis J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
25 October 2019
A total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, comprised of consecutive sentences of seven years for five offences of human trafficking and five years for four offences of supplying drugs, was appropriate for a 21-year-old offender considering his relative youth and the fact that he had no real criminal history.
QBD (Stewart J, Master Brown)
24 October 2019
Charges of conspiring to evade the prohibition on the importation of firearms and ammunition in contravention of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 s.170(2) fell within Class F, not Class B, of the Table of Offences listed in the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 Sch.1 Pt 7.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, William Davis J, Jefford J)
24 October 2019
When refusing an application by service defendants to dismiss criminal charges brought against them in the Court Martial, a judge advocate general had erred in concluding that the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 r.25(3) provided a stand-alone or residuary jurisdiction at the arraignment stage. Also, under r.26, proceedings were to be conducted comparably to proceedings conducted in the Crown Court and, if unable to determine how such proceedings would be conducted, in the interests of justice.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Bate)
15 October 2019
A sentence of 32 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A and Class B drugs was replaced with one of 30 years. The overall criminality, which involved highly sophisticated conspiracies, justified a sentence of 30 years but not above.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Lavender J, Fancourt J)
4 October 2019
In a complex trial in which 11 defendants faced numerous charges arising from their alleged sexual exploitation of teenage girls, the fact that one of the jurors had conducted internet research and told the others that one of the defendants had previously served a custodial sentence did not mean that the entire jury should be discharged. It was sufficient to discharge the juror in question, order a retrial in respect of the defendant in question, and permit the remaining jurors to continue in respect of the other 10 defendants.
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, Sweeney J, Moulder J)
3 October 2019
An appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to commit violent disorder was allowed because there was a real risk that the conviction was unsafe in the light of the confusing and potentially misleading directions given by the trial judge in answer to a jury question.