Search for: "Regina"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2012, 4:33 am
Regina v Barnett; [2011] EWCA Crim 2936; [2011] WLR (D) 385 “In relation to proceedings in which a defendant’s benefit from general criminal conduct was assessed the court was ‘entitled’ to make the assumptions provided for in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 even if the prosecution had not given the written preliminary notice provided for in section 71(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 2:26 am
Regina v Webster [2010] EWCA Crim 2819; [2010] WLR (D) 216 “The reverse onus of proof which s 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 effected on a prosecution for an offence contrary to s 1(2) of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, placing on the defendant the legal burden of disproving guilt was no longer necessary and the means of imposition were unreasonable and disproportionate, and so it unjustifiably interfered with the presumption of innocence provided by art 6(2)… [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:25 am
Regina v Lee [2010] EWCA Crim 1404; [2010] WLR (D) 160 “The offence under s 85(5)(b) of the Medicines Act 1968 of selling or supplying a medicinal product which was misleadingly labelled or marked in respect of the nature or quality of the product, where such sale or supply was done by a person ‘in the course of a business carried on by him’, could not be committed by a person who was merely employed or engaged by the business which carried out the sale or supply, but was… [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:22 am
Regina v Brewster [2010] EWCA Crim 1194; [2010] WLR (D) 159 “Where a party sought to admit evidence of a witness’s bad character which bore only indirectly on his credibility, and that credibility was a matter in issue in the proceedings and of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, such evidence was only admissible pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as evidence of substantial probative value on the issue of creditworthiness if… [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 2:31 am
Regina v D (P) [2012] EWCA Crim 19; [2012] WLR (D) 10 “The fact that the effect of a good character direction might be undermined by the facts of a particular case provided no justification for a judge to decline to give any such direction.” WLR Daily, 26th January 2012 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 2:46 am
Regina v S (G) [2012] WLR (D) 28 “The transmission of electronically stored data to only one recipient is sufficient publication with section 1(3) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for the purposes of a prosecution under that Act.” WLR Daily, 9th February 2012 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 9:40 am
Regina v Horncastle and anotherl; ReginaMarquis and another [2009] UKSC 14; [2009] WLR (D) 358 "Provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were observed, a defendant’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed art 6(3)(d) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, [...] [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 3:22 am
Regina v F(S) [2011] EWCA Crim 1844; [2011] WLR (D) 242 “An application to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process on grounds of delay and a submission of ‘no case to answer’ were two distinct matters which had to receive distinct and separate consideration. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 1:57 am
Regina v Lancaster Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “The jury had to decide on the facts of the case whether an omission in a claim form was significant. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 3:45 am
Regina v Zaman Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “A conviction for assisting an offender was not rendered unsafe by reason of subsequent acquittal of the person assisted. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 3:05 am
Regina v W Court of Appeal, Criminal Division “Whether a defendant was acting dishonestly was a matter for the jury after a correct direction from the trial judge. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:46 am
Regina v Penner Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “Defence counsel must avoid ambushing the prosecution with a new issue. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:59 am
Regina v Vasili [2011] WLR (D) 58 “If an object had all the characteristics of a flick knife, it would therefore be considered an offensive weapon per se: the fact that the same object functioned also as a lighter did not stop it being an offensive weapon. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 4:04 am
Regina v Abbas and another: [2012] EWCA Crim 2517; [2012] WLR (D) 352 “Where the Crown alleged that the defendant was part of a joint enterprise involving the possession of an imitation firearm, proof of which depended upon the drawing of an inference, it was incumbent on a judge in summing up to identify the evidence of primary fact upon the basis of which, if it was accepted, a jury might infer knowledge and thus possession by the defendant as well as the… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 2:49 am
Regina v Ghulam Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “Evidence from two or more doctors was required only before plea for a determination that a defendant was unfit to plead. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 1:31 am
Regina v Bannister Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) “The special skill, or lack of skill of a driver was irrelevant when considering whether his driving was dangerous. [read post]
29 May 2014, 12:29 pm
Scene of the Accident Regina Allen was killed in the crash, while the driver of the motorcycle was taken to a local hospital for treatment of his injuries. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 2:43 am
Regina v Magro and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1575; [2010] WLR (D) 176 “Although a five-judge constitution of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had a discretion to decide that a previous decision of that court should not be treated as a binding decision when it was wrong, it was not entitled to disregard or deprive the only decision of a three-judge constitution of the court of its authority on a distinct and clearly identified point of law, reached after full argument and close… [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 2:31 am
Power to exclude evidence of probative value Regina v. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:47 am
Regina v Seaton [2010] EWCA Crim 1980; [2010] WLR (D) 234 “Where it was suggested at trial that a defendant’s or witness’s account was a recent fabrication, he could not, unless he had waived legal professional privilege, be asked whether he had told his lawyer what he now said was the truth, or whether he was willing to waive the privilege. [read post]
