Criminal News in Brief – March 2018 by Thomas Evans

5th March 2018

Criminal barrister Thomas Evans brings you the latest edition of Criminal News in Brief.

Supreme Court

Search and Seizure: a magistrates’ court is entitled to consider material which cannot be disclosed on public policy grounds when issuing search and seizure warrants under PACE 1984. Further, a closed procedure may be adopted by the Crown Court to enable the consideration of non-disclosable material when considering an inter partes application to retain unlawfully seized material (R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans and another [2018] UKSC 1)

Court of Appeal

Juries: there can be no investigation into the deliberation of jurors except in limited circumstances such as where they have decided matters using means other than by deliberation (e.g a coin toss) or where an allegation is made of extraneous influences. Where a judge is notified of an irregularity after the jury has been discharged the correct procedure is to notify the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Judge should not have notified counsel nor certified the case for appeal in circumstances where jurors had indicated that they were bullied into returning verdicts so that others did not have to return the following Monday (R v Davey [2017] EWCA 1062).

Credit for plea: an email sent to instructing solicitors contemplating a change of plea does not amount to an ‘indication’ for purposes of the Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline. Although the Court did not provide any clear guidance it appears that an indication must be communicated to the court for credit to be given (R v Reid [2017] EWCA Crim 1523).

Cross-Examination: requiring the Defence to provide to the Court a list of prepared questions before questioning a vulnerable witness is not inherently unfair. Such a requirement is not limited to ‘exceptional cases’. Further, restricting questions is not inherently unfair and in appropriate circumstances lists of admissions of behaviour or previous inconsistent statements can be provided to the jury (R v Dinc [2017] EWCA 1206).

High Court

Appeals: an appeal from the magistrates’ court to the High Court must be made within 21 days. There is no discretion to extend the time limit (Mishra v Colchester Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWHC 2869 (Admin)).

Amendment of information and summons: no amendment is possible outside the six-month limitation period where the prosecuting authority makes a mistake as to the identity of the appropriate defendant. However, where the error is simply a misstatement of name the court can correct the deficiency. A factual enquiry is necessary to determine the nature of the error (Platinum Crown Investments Ltd v North East Essex Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWHC 2761.

Drugs: “poppy straw” (meaning all parts of the opium poppy except from the seeds after mowing) is a controlled drug (Marhawa v UK Border Revenue Agency [2017] EWHC 2321 (Admin)).

Bail: the refusal of bail following a guilty plea and pending sentence is not susceptible to judicial review. Such a decision is a “matter relating to trial on indictment” and accordingly falls outside the remit of Section 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (A(F) v Kingston Crown Court [2017] EWHC 2706 (Admin)).

Licensing: a council cannot lawfully suspend the licence of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle by reason of a criminal charge on a “wait and see” basis. Any suspension must be based by way of a substantive decision concerning the fitness of a driver having given them the proper opportunity to state their case (Reigate and Barnstead Borough Council v Pawlowski [2017] EWHC 1764 (Admin)).