All posts in the Recent case category

Confiscation proceedings – lessons from R v Mahmood Court of Appeal judgment

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in R v Mahmood [2013] EWCA 325 provides important guidance on several important issues which often arise in criminal confiscation proceedings before the Crown Court. These proceedings occur where a defendant has been convicted of an offence and his/her criminal conduct enabled them to obtain a financial benefit. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) requires a Crown Court to consider whether a confiscation order should be made in order to compel that defendant to repay this benefit. These proceedings are supposedly about restitution and not, in contrast to a fine, meant to be punitive. Broadly, POCA requires a judge to determine the value of the illicit benefit and then fix the amount of the order by reference to the value of the defendant’s then wealth, their ability to pay. Or as POCA puts it, their “available amount”.

R v Druce – why the truth alone is not always enough

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Druce ([2013] EWCA 40) delivered on 31st January is a stark lesson in how confiscation proceedings can go badly wrong for an ill-prepared defendant.

Sleeping with the enemy – might undercover officers be guilty of sexual offences?

The case of an undercover police officer who is reported to have infiltrated environmental protest groups has been back in the news, as a group of women who had been in sexual relationships with undercover officers appeared in the High Court. These women are bringing claims against the police for the emotional trauma they say has been caused by the deception underlying these relationships. The women have chosen to air their grievances through the civil courts, but the facts also raise an interesting question of criminal law: in being deceived about the true identity of the police officers, were these women truly consenting to sexual relations with them? Put more simply, might these officers be guilty of committing sexual offences?

Recent appeals in UAE extradition cases – the extradition pipeline has opened

The number of countries with which the UK has formal extradition treaties is ever increasing, as the government seeks to cooperate more closely with foreign jurisdictions. One such country is the United Arab Emirates, with whom the UK has had an all crimes extradition treaty since 2008. This allows individuals to be extradited from the UK to the UAE if the conduct on which the offence is based is punishable under the laws of both countries by at least one year in prison, so long as a prima facie evidential case is provided.

It is this important legal safeguard of submitting a prima facie case that has been at issue in the recent cases coming to the High Court on appeal. In many other extradition contexts, notably the US/UK treaty and the Council of Europe extradition convention as well as the EU European Arrest Warrant, the prima facie case requirement has been abandoned.

News Group must pay Coulson legal costs: implications of Court of Appeal judgment

Yesterday’s judgment by the Court of Appeal in Coulson v News Group Newspapers (NGN) is good news for those who have a legal expenses insurance policy which they wish to use to defend themselves against an allegation that they have committed a criminal offence. Typically such policies are written for the protection of directors and officers of companies and are sold by insurers on the basis that they provide “peace of mind” in the event that any allegation of malpractice is made against them in connection with their duties. Whatever the anxiety caused by such an allegation, the insured can at least rest assured that their lawyers’ bills in relation to rebutting it will be paid on their behalf. Judging by the way in which they are widely marketed in magazines such as The Economist, such policies must be good business for insurers.

Implications of the Gary McKinnon extradition decision

Shortly after 12.30pm on 16 October, Home Secretary Theresa May announced her decision to block the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the United States. For Mr McKinnon and his many supporters, the decision represents a remarkable and hard-fought victory. But once the euphoria evaporates, what is the likely long-term impact of the decision?

In standing up to the UK’s closest diplomatic ally, Ms May’s decision was certainly brave. The decision was also politically shrewd, at least in domestic terms. Mr McKinnon’s case had become the paradigm example of what critics from all political parties (and the British public at large) consider to be an unfairness at the heart of our extradition laws. But it is difficult to believe that many others will ultimately benefit from the decision.

Bail securities vs sureties – lessons from the Julian Assange case

One of the interesting issues thrown up by the Julian Assange case concerns the fate of those of his supporters who staked their money on him obeying a UK court ruling that he must face trial in Stockholm. These supporters can be divided into two groups: those who deposited money with the court as a bail security – four individuals who collectively paid in £200k; and nine other individuals who agreed to act as sureties on the understanding that they would forfeit a defined amount of money if Assange were to breach his bail conditions – their pledges totalled £140k.

Police interviews – when can ‘emergency provisions’ be invoked?

Police investigating the disappearance of April Jones from Machynlleth, Powys, on Monday evening have refused to confirm whether a man arrested in connection with the investigation had been interviewed in the absence of a legal adviser under what are sometimes described as “emergency provisions”. In what circumstances can an individual who has requested legal advice be interviewed by police before receiving such advice, and what are the implications of the police conducting an interview in this way?

New prosecution fears for Swiss bank account holders

Last week it was reported that the Swiss private bank Julius Baer suffered a theft of personal data relating to clients who may have taken advantage of the country’s famous banking secrecy laws to evade tax. It is reported that the data was sold by a bank employee to German tax investigators who will now consider launching investigations into those concerned. It is not known if the data contains details of UK tax payers. If it did, those account holders will be left wondering how much protection is afforded by the UK Government’s declaration that it would not “actively seek to acquire customer data stolen from Swiss banks”.

One year on: how well did the courts deal with the 2011 riots?

Last week eight men were acquitted of the murder of three men who died in Birmingham during the 2011 riots. This draws to a close a year in which the courts have been forced to deal with an almost unprecedented wave of violent, theft-related and public order cases. So what can we conclude from the way in which the courts dealt with the aftermath of the disorder?

According to the Ministry of Justice, by 15 June 2012 3,051 people (of an estimated 15,000 participants) had been brought before the courts in relation to the riots. Interestingly, it does not appear that any prosecutions were brought for the substantive offence of riot; the highest percentage of charges were for either violent disorder or robbery, followed by burglary, criminal damage and theft. There were also charges for incitement to riot, notably those cases involving social networking websites. A charge of riot requires 12 or more participants, rather than the three required for a violent disorder charge. There is also the added hurdle of the requirement of unlawful violence for a common purpose. Overcoming this final hurdle may have been the main issue for the CPS.