This week’s Digest is the first of two posts that consider judgments handed down during the vacation period. In part one, we focus on the Divisional Court’s decision that the SFO’s compulsory production powers apply extraterritorially; and three Court of Appeal judgments addressing jury directions about lies; the meaning of ‘possession’ in the context of the offence of possessing extreme pornographic images and appropriate fines for health and safety offences.

R (KBR Inc) v. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2018] EWHC 2368 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Gross LJ on 06.09.18

The primary issue in this case was whether a notice issued by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office pursuant to s. 2(3) Criminal Justice Act 1987 to a company present in the jurisdiction but incorporated abroad could require the company to deliver up documents located outside the jurisdiction and provide them to the Serious Fraud Office. The Court held that such a notice was not illegal; s. 2(3) Criminal Justice Act 1987 had extraterritorial effect , provided the company in question had a sufficient connection with the UK.

  

v. Williams [2018] EWCA Cim 1986

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Thirlwall LJ on 31.08.19.

The appellant in this case sought to appeal against conviction on the basis that (a) the judge was wrong not to give a Lucas direction and (b) that the judge had treated counsel prejudicially during the trial in such a way as to render the trial unfair. Both grounds failed; the judge was correct not give a Lucas direction in this case and there was no substance in the appellant’s complaints about the trial judge’s conduct.

 

v. Cyprian Okoro (No. 3) [2018] EWCA Crim 1929

The judgment, available here,was handed down by Irwin LJ on 22.08.18.

The issue in this case was the definition of ‘possession’ of inappropriate pornographic images for offences relating to possession thereof. For an accused to be in ‘possession’ of an image, (1) the image must have been within the appellant’s custody or control so that he was capable of accessing it; and (2) he must have known that he possessed an image. Knowledge of the content of those images, however, remained a matter for the statutory defences for such offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

 

v. Electricity North West Ltd [2008] EWCA Crim 1944

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 23.8.2018.

The appellant was convicted of an offence contrary to regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and fined £900,000. It appealed against conviction and sentence; the former on the basis that, in the absence of creation of a risk of harm, there could be no conviction under regulation 4(1), and, in any event, that the jury’s verdict on other counts was inconsistent with their verdict of guilty regarding reg. 4(1); the latter on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence succeeded; a fine of £135,000 was substituted for the higher fine.

 

 

Legal Action to revoke article 50 referred to the European Court of Justice

 

Stop and search makes crime more likely, report finds

 

Miscarriage of justice body’s funding cuts criticised as workload grows

 

CPS to take no action over death of Leon Briggs

 

Previous post Adequate Procedures and the Watchful Eye of the Prosecutor
Next post The letter of the law