Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Nov 2010

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to discontinue the prosecution of the claimant. The judge had suggested that the defendant could submit to a restraining order without a finding of guilt. The CPS had concluded that no such agreement could be reached after an acquittal on the offer of no evidence, but rather required an acquittal after a trial.
Held: Review was granted. Though there might be circumstances weere it would be proper to allow the prosecutor to withdraw from such an offer, it was clear that in this case there had been an agreement reached. Each such situation must be assessed on its own facts.
References: [2010] EWHC 3593 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Ouseley J
Statutes: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Mahdi CACD ([1993] Crim LR 793)
    There had been delay in the prosecution. Eventually, the prosecutor sought another adjournment before Judge Clarkson, who said ‘it is to be recorded that this is the last time that there will be an adjournment for the benefit of the prosecution.’ He . .
  • Cited – Regina v Bloomfield CACD ([1997] 1 Cr App R 135, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Crim 1801)
    It was an abuse of process to proceed with a prosecution in the face of an unequivocal statement by counsel for the Crown to the Court that the prosecution would tender no evidence. There was no change of circumstances which might have justified . .
  • Cited – Nembhard v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 194 (Admin))
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for failing to produce his driving documents, saying that the local police had stopped some 55 times in the previous 12 months, and that the request was improper and an abuse.
    Held: ‘An officer can . .
  • Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, Times 30-Nov-06, [2007] 2 WLR 226, [2007] 3 All ER 451, [2007] 1 Cr App R 27)
    The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.431940

Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Nov 2009

The claimant sought compensation for his imprisonment after the overturning of his conviction, on the basis that evidence had emerged which undermined the conviction.
Held: Such a claim could not succeed where the reason for the non-use of the evidence was the incompetence or otherwise of the defence lawyers. Existing law had not decided just what constituted new evidence as regards who any evidence was unknown to. A failure by a defence team to recognise the significance of a particular item of evidence was not an example to fall with Lord Bingham’s categories in Mullen of something going seriously wrong, unless that failure was so bad as to be egregious.
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1291, Times 07-Dec-2009, [2010] QB 460, [2010] 3 WLR 63, [2010] 1 Cr App R 25
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Lloyd
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.381578

Henry v Thames Valley Police: CA 14 Jan 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after he had been injured when a police car following him ran over his leg. He had been riding a motorcycle and apparently seeking to escape them. He had stopped and was talking to one officer, and placing the cycle on its stand, when the second officer drove the car forward trapping him.
Held: The judge had failed to assess the evidence correctly. Though the officer was entitled to use his car to impede an escape, he was not entitled to do so in a way which injured the person being stopped. The claimant had not faltered but was injured dismounting the motorcycle in an ordinary fashion. He was not given sufficient room, and the officer was primarily liable, with a contributing liability of 40% from the claimant.
‘What matters in a civil action is whether the defendant’s actions were negligent in that they fell below the expected standard of reasonable skill or care. It may be wise to avoid any argument about whether there has been an error of judgment.’ (Pill LJ dissenting on the result)
References: [2010] EWCA Civ 5
Links: Bailii
Judges: Pill, Arden, Smith LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Marshall v Osmond CA ([1983] 2 All ER 367, [1983] 1 QB 1034, [1983] 3 WLR 13)
    The plaintiff was passenger in a stolen car seeking to escape the police as they chased. The car was stopped, the plaintiff got out of the car, and was hit by a police car. He sought damages.
    Held: His appeal against dismissal of his claim was . .
  • Cited – Simpson v Peat ([1952] 2 QB 24)
    As to the offence of driving without due care and attention, Lord Goddard said: ‘The expression ‘error of judgment’ is not a term of art; it is in fact one of the vaguest possible description: it can be used colloquially to describe either a . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.392850