‘This article considers the recent case of R v Johnson [2020] EWCA Crim 482 and its implications for practitioners drafting conspiracy indictments and advising clients in relation to them.’
4 King's Bench Walk, 17th June 2020
Source: www.4kbw.co.uk
‘Lawyers representing victims of the serial sex attacker John Worboys are demanding prosecutors reassess 93 cases for which he was not previously prosecuted.’
The Guardian, 11th January 2018
Source: www.theguardian.com
Regina v Nelson (Scott) and another [2016] EWCA Crim 1517
‘The defendants, S and N, were members of a gang. The police were on high alert on a housing estate because they were aware that the defendants’ gang might mount a revenge attack on a rival gang. S ran towards a police officer who shouted to him to stop but S pulled out a submachine gun and fired one shot which missed the police officer. S ran off and hid in a block of flats where he disposed of the gun but was eventually arrested. He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Following the shooting incident N had hidden the gun in the loft where it was found six months later. He was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(a) and (aba) of the 1968 Act, and assisting an offender, contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. N applied for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground that the judge had erred in law in failing to direct the jury to consider the two counts which he faced as alternatives when they arose out of a single transaction.’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Lewis (Leroy): [2013] EWCA Crim 2596; [2014] WLR (D) 38
‘Once an indictment had been properly preferred and signed it remained the indictment in the case, so that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try a case where no evidence had been offered on the single indictable offence and only summary offences were left to be tried.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Powell (Carl) [2014] WLR (D) 34
‘The statutory regimes concerning joinder of counts in an indictment and cross-admissibility of evidence were separate and the settled criteria concerning joinder had not been superseded in consequence of the changes in relation to evidence of bad character made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Wilson (Michael) [2013] EWCA Crim 1780 ; [2013] WLR (D) 404
“Article 32(8) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 did not create a discrete offence, but an indictment containing a charge which referred only to article 32(8), and not to the other article in combination with which it created an offence, was not a nullity and a conviction might, despite the material irregularity, be considered safe.”
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Uddin) v Crown Court at Leeds [2013] EWHC 2752 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 372
“Pursuant to section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, as amended, a decision to revoke the bail of a defendant during the course of a trial on indictment before the Crown Court was not amenable to judicial review by the High Court, such a decision ‘relating to trial on indictment’ within the meaning of the subsection.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Love and another [2013] WLR (D) 56
“After a guilty plea had been entered an indictment could be amended otherwise than on an application by the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 13th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Gul (Hamesh): [2012] EWCA Crim 1761; [2012] WLR (D) 245
“Where a defendant was sent for trial to the Crown Court on an indictable only offence but no such offence was included in the indictment when it was signed and the procedure to determine mode of trial was not followed such non-compliance with those procedural requirements would not result in the proceedings being a nullity where the defendant was able to cure any defect in the process by making an appropriate application to the judge at the time.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Feeley [2012] WLR (D) 83
“Where a defendant was being retried, following a successful appeal against conviction, there was no reason in principle why additional counts should not be added to the indictment.”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A judge told prosecutors to act more seriously after court papers included the words ‘blah, blah, blah’ and ‘yakkity schmakitty’ in them.”
Daily Telegraph, 4th January 2011
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina v McKenzie [2011] EWCA Crim 1550; [2011] WLR (D) 207
“Where the counts in an indictment referred to offences contrary to a specific statutory provision but the particulars referred to acts which would be contrary to a different statutory provision, findings of a jury could not be upheld on the basis that the requirements of section 4A(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 were met, or that the defects could be cured by application of section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.”
WLR Daily, 23rd June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v B (F); Same v P (A); Same v C (J) [2010] EWCA Crim 1857; [2010] WLR (D) 21
“A judge sitting in the Crown Court had no power to quash an indictment simply because he did not believe that the proceedings were appropriately brought or were not in the public interest when compared with his assessment of the needs of other cases and that had not changed as a result of the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The failure to endorse an order amending an indictment would amount to a fundamental error if the court had failed positively to exercise its discretion to make such an order.”
WLR Daily, 8th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“A confiscation order could be made against a convicted drug trafficker in respect of benefit received from other drug trafficking which had not been charged on the indictment but which had been established by evidence during the trial.”
The Times, 30th April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R v Goldshield Group plc and others [2008] UKHL 17; [2008] WLR (D) 388
“An allegation of price fixing carried out in circumstances of secretive and deceptive behaviour was insufficient of itself to found a charge of conspiracy to defraud. It was necessary to isolate and charge specific aggravating elements which would elevate price fixing into an indictable conspiracy to defraud.”
WLR Daily, 16th December 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“The words ‘proceedings before the crown court’ in section 6(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 meant proceedings under a single indictment. The expression did not cover everything, in whatever form, before the court on the date when sentence was to be imposed.”
The Times, 26th November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R v Moulden [2008] EWCA Crim 2561; [2008] WLR (D) 352
“In s 6(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the words ‘proceedings before the Crown Court’ meant proceedings under a single indictment. The expression did not cover everything, in whatever form, before the court on the date sentence was to be imposed.”
WLR Daily, 12th November 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An angry judge has branded a prosecution worker an ‘illiterate idiot’ after spotting several spelling mistakes in an indictment.”
BBC News, 12th August 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023