Law Weblog

Briggs, R v (2003) CA

[Theft – appropriation does not include obtaining by deception]
D deceived elderly relatives into making a payment to her during their house move, whereby she (and her father) obtained title to the new property.

Held: D did not appropriate an item if by fraud she induced the owner to part with that item. R v Naviede [1997] was relied on.

If this were not the case there would be little need for many of the deception offences as many acts of deceptive conduct would be covered by theft, and the word “appropriation” connoted a physical act rather than a more remote action triggering the payment which gave rise to the charge.

Not guilty

R v Bentham (2003) CA Statutory Interpretation – the Purposive Approach

[Statutory Interpretation – the Purposive Approach]
D robbed A, whom he believed owed him money. A was still in bed. The defendant pointed his finger, covered by his jacket at A and demanded “every penny in the house”.  A believed his fingers were a gun.

Held: A purposive approach had to be adopted.  Section 17 of the Firearms Act 1968 was clearly designed to protect the victim confronted with what he thought was a firearm. It did not matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro or simply anorak material stiffened by a figure. If it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to find the offence made out. 

Guilty

Lagden v O’Connor (HL) the impecunious claimant.

[Tort – remedies – impecunious claimant]
D struck C’s car. C being impecunious (poor) had to hire a car from a car hire company that charged more for the credit involved because C could not pay “up front”. This arrangement was more expensive than one hired in the normal way, which C could not afford to do. Since 1933 the rule in Liesbosch Dredger case would not allow a defendant to suffer because of an impecuniosity of the claimant.

Held: The Liesbosch Dredger must now be regarded as overtaken by subsequent developments in the law.

C won
Whole cases here.

R v Cannings [2003] CA Miscarriage of Justice

10 December 2003
Angela Cannings had her conviction of the murder of two of her children, seven-week-old Jason in 1991 and 18-week-old Matthew in 1999 overturned by the Court of Appeal because it was unsafe. 

Ms Cannings, 40, a former shop assistant, has lost three children through Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), or cot death. 
SIDS was the cause of death after Ms Cannings’ first child, Gemma, who died at the age of 13 weeks in 1989. 
Ms Cannings has one surviving daughter, who was born in 1996.

News report, here

Miscarriage of Justice? R v Ellis (Ruth) (Deceased) (2003) CA

Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in Britain, had her murder conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal; Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Silber and Mr Justice Leveson.

The case was referred to the court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The Old Bailey judge Sir Cecil Havers barred the jury from considering whether Ellis had acted under provocation.

Two years after Ellis’s execution – and largely prompted by her case – Parliament changed the law so as to allow a defence of diminished responsibility.

Lord Justice Kay: “We have to question whether this exercise of considering an appeal so long after the event, when Mrs Ellis herself had consciously and deliberately chosen not to appeal at the time, is a sensible use of the limited resources of the Court of Appeal.”

News report, here

Appeal case report, here

COURTS ACT HERALDS HISTORIC REFORMS TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Key features of the Courts Act include:
– Tough new fines enforcement system:
new ‘fines officers’ who will have discretion to vary payment terms
and will be able to impose sanctions (including vehicle clamping) on
defaulters who refuse to co-operate
powers to deduct from earnings and benefits
an ability to allow some fines to be discharged by unpaid work
a new offence of failure to provide information about offenders’ financial circumstances to the court
new powers to pilot innovative collection measures

– Unified Courts Administration (UCA) for the Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown Court, county and magistrates’ Courts. The UCA will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts, making the work of the courts more transparent, removing unnecessary duplication and ensuring greater consistency of approach across the courts.

– New Local Courts Boards will work in partnership with the agency to ensure that there is a strong local focus in the new unified courts agency. The new Boards will comprise at least seven members including two magistrates, one judge, two people with knowledge of the courts in their area (e.g. lawyers, victim support and citizens’
advice) and two representatives of the local community. With community representation, the Boards will be able to influence how the courts should be run in their area, having a say in decisions such as where courts are located and how the level of service for court users can be improved. Reflecting the needs of the community they serve, there will be greater local accountability in the new administration.

– New wider inspection regime for the organisation and administration of the courts. This will ensure efficient use of
resources, value for money and report on inefficiencies. It will also extend to the Crown Courts and county courts for the first time.

– Support improvements to case preparation and progression by providing for binding pre-trial rulings in the magistrates’ courts.

– Improve public perception of the courts through changes to modernise judicial titles. For instance, allowing females judges of the Court of Appeal to take the title Lady Justice rather than Lord Justice.

– Improve support for victims and witnesses and confidence in the criminal justice system through increased court security and new powers for court security officers.

– Strengthen civil courts’ power to award damages in personal injury cases in the form of periodical payments rather than a lump sum.

– Allow the courts to award costs against third parties whose seriously improper actions cause wasted costs, perhaps through the collapse of a criminal case.

– Establish new Rule Committees in order to deal with criminal and family business in a modern, streamlined way. The new Criminal and Family Procedure Rule Committees will bring an end to the different and fragmented ways for making those rules. They will consider the current practices and procedures within the criminal and family courts, then make rules with the aim of ensuring their simplification and modernisation. By placing responsibility with dedicated Committees, more consistent rules should be developed.

– Removal from the High Sheriffs of each county the personal responsibility for overseeing enforcement of most High Court writs and judgments and placing it in the hands of appointed High Court “enforcement officers.”

– Provisions to improve and underpin magistrates’ training and appraisal.

The Courts Act primarily implements the key courts related recommendations contained in Sir Robin Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales (October 2001) and signalled in the White Paper “Justice for All” published on 17th July 2002.  More information here

Criminal damage revisited, R v Kelleher [2003] CA

[Criminal damage – lawful excuse – judge must not direct a jury to convict]
D entered an art gallery and decapitated a statue of Baroness Thatcher in protest at her policies which he foresaw were leading the world towards its eventual destruction.  The judge directed the jury to convict because of none of the evidence was disputed and the statutory defence did not engage with D.

Held: A judge is never entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.  A defence of lawful excuse was only available where, whatever the defendant’s state of mind, the defendant’s act had been in order to protect his own property or right or interest, or that of anyone else.

The Court examined, once again, the breadth of the defence of “lawful excuse” to a charge of criminal damage. They considered the following cases R v Heyes [1950] and R v Hickey (unreported 30 July 1997). They applied DPP v Stonehouse [1977], R v Gent [1990] and R v Davis [2000]. They doubted R v Hill (1989).

The evidence was overwhelming in any event, so the the conviction was safe.

Sex

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 – the most radical overhaul of sex offences legislation for 50 years – received Royal Assent on 20th November.
The new Act redefines rape and consent in sexual offences and creates a new series of offences to protect vulnerable people including a new grooming offence based on meeting a child with the intention of committing a sex offence.
The Act creates a new series of civil orders that will restrict the movement of potential sex offenders both in this country and abroad.

See here for more details

Criminal Justice Act 2003

The new Act – received Royal Assent on 20 November – contains many new and radical changes to the way courts and police operate.
The Act makes fundamental changes, including reforms to

An omission can amount to the actus reus of an assault. Director of Public Prosecutions v Santana-Bermudez (2003) DC

[Assault – actus reus – inactivity by D – an omission can amount to the actus reus of an assault]
D injured a woman police officer by allowing her to search him, knowing he had hypodermic needles in his pockets. V asked D if the items he removed himself was everything to which he replied ‘yes’. She then asked ‘are you sure that you do not have any needles or sharps on you’. D said ‘no’. D was stuck by a needle causing bleeding. She noticed that the defendant had a smirk on his face.
D was convicted by the Magistrates, but acquitted at Crown Court. On appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court, the appeal was allowed.

Held: Where someone, by act or word or a combination of the two, created a danger and thereby exposed another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialised, there was an evidential basis for the actus reus of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, it remained necessary for the prosecution to prove an intention to assault or appropriate recklessness.

In the instant case, D by giving the police officer a dishonest assurance about the contents of his pockets, thereby exposed her to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury which materialised.