Criminal Practice in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Sweet v Parsley
    • House of Lords
    • 23 January 1969

    In the first place a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stimga. So he would have to consider whether, in a case of this gravity, the public interest really requires that an innocent person should be prevented from proving his innocence in order that fewer guilty men may escape.

  • Woolmington v DPP
    • House of Lords
    • 05 April 1935

    Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.

  • R v DPP ex parte Kebeline
    • House of Lords
    • 28 October 1999

    In this area difficult choices may have to be made by the executive or the legislature between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. In some circumstances it will be appropriate for the courts to recognise that there is an area of judgment within which the judiciary will defer, on democratic grounds, to the considered opinion of the elected body or person whose act or decision is said to be incompatible with the Convention.

  • Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline)
    • Privy Council
    • 05 December 2000

    The jurisprudence of the European Court very clearly establishes that while the overall fairness of a criminal trial cannot be compromised, the constituent rights comprised, whether expressly or implicitly, within article 6 are not themselves absolute.

  • R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court ex parte Bennett (A.P.)
    • House of Lords
    • 24 June 1993

    If the court is to have the power to interfere with the prosecution in the present circumstances it must be because the judiciary accept a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law. If the court is to have the power to interfere with the prosecution in the present circumstances it must be because the judiciary accept a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms
    • House of Lords
    • 08 July 1999

    Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual.

  • R v Powell (Anthony Glassford); R v English (Philip); R v Daniels (Antonio Eval)
    • House of Lords
    • 30 October 1997

    It is just that a secondary party who foresees that the primary offender might kill with the intent sufficient for murder, and assists and encourages the primary offender in the criminal enterprise on this basis, should be guilty of murder. Experience has shown that joint criminal enterprises only too readily escalate into the commission of greater offences. In order to deal with this important social problem the accessory principle is needed and cannot be abolished or relaxed.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
  • Application notice (Pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003)
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Forms relating to matters raised in the Administrative Court, including challenges to decisions made by organisations such as local authorities and regulators.
    ... ... Application notices must comply with Part 50 of Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 and 50D of the Criminal Practice Directions and must ... ...
  • Apply for a judicial review of a decision
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Forms relating to matters raised in the Administrative Court, including challenges to decisions made by organisations such as local authorities and regulators.
    ... ... • Subject to the considerations in Practice Direction 54D 5.2, the general expectation is that ... proceedings will be ... For example, if you were a defendant in a criminal ... case in the Magistrates or Crown Court and are ... making a claim for ... ...
  • Form COP44A
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Court of Protection forms including the COP1 application to make decisions on someone's behalf.
    ... ... • unfair dismissal awards ... • money from the criminal injury compensation scheme ... • medical negligence or personal injury ... that you are not realistically able to afford the fee in practice or that there are other ... circumstances which justify remission of the ... ...
  • Apply to become someone's deputy (make a declaration)
    • HM Courts & Tribunals Service court and tribunal forms
    Court of Protection forms including the COP1 application to make decisions on someone's behalf.
    ... ... Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence? ... (Do not include convictions spent under the Rehabilitation of ... I will have regard to the Mental Capacity ... Act 2005 Code of Practice and I will apply ... the principles of the Act when making ... a decision ... ...
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT