This week’s Digest considers four judgments: two from the Court of Appeal and two from the Divisional Court. In the first, the court considered an appeal against a manslaughter conviction where the defendant gave no evidence yet had his defence statement read to the jury. In the second, the issue was whether a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) made pursuant to s. 59(2)(a) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) which had prohibited, amongst other things, abortion related protest outside a centre that had provided family planning services, including abortion services, was lawful. In R (Office W80) v IOPC in the Divisional Court, a specialist firearms officer challenged the decision of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to bring misconduct proceedings against him after a fatal shooting in north London. In MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis the Court considered whether the appellant, who was awarded damages for false imprisonment and assault, was also entitled to costs.

R v Duarte & anor [2019] EWCA Crim 1466

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Holroyde LJ on 16 August 2019.

An appeal against conviction turned on whether the prosecution could seek to adduce all or part of the contents of a defence statement where the defendant was not going to give evidence. The Court held that while the prosecution could indeed do so, this was only possible where showing the jury the statement would help resolve a matter in issue at the trial. Despite the material irregularity, the conviction was nonetheless safe. The other defendant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was allowed, on the basis that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to certain mitigating factors.

 

Dulgheriu and another v Ealing London Borough Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1490

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mr Justice Turner on 21 August 2019.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been correct to dismiss the action of the appellants, who were affiliated to a Christian group, challenging a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) made pursuant to s 59(2)(a) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) which had prohibited, amongst other things, abortion related protest outside a centre that had provided family planning services, including abortion services.

R (Officer W80) v IOPC [2019] EWHC 2215 (Admin)

The judgment of Flaux LJ, dated 14 August 2019, is available here.

The case turned on whether, in a situation where a police officer had shot a member of the public dead, that officer’s claim of self-defence to a charge of gross misconduct could be grounded in his honest belief that his life was in imminent danger (the criminal test), or whether that belief also had to be reasonable (the civil test). The Court held that while any such belief did not have to be reasonable as a self-standing limb of the test of self-defence in misconduct proceedings, the reasonableness of the belief would go to whether it was indeed honestly held. The correct test was therefore the criminal one. On the facts, the Independent Office of Police Conduct (“IOPC”) had applied the wrong test, and the claim succeeded.

 

MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 (QB)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mrs Justice McGowan on 21 August 2019.

Mrs Justice McGowan allowed an appeal as to costs relating to Part 36. She held that the trial judge had erred in making no order for costs in a case where the claimant had made a valid Part 36 offer to settle for no damages but with an admission of liability. The Appellant was entitled to costs, and the relevant enhancements, from the relevant date following the Part 36 offer.

 

OTHER NEWS

 
Prosecutions in England and Wales fall to record low

 

Police forces halt trials of facial recognition systems

 

Police Scotland spend £7 million on Brexit contingency planning

Trafficked Vietnamese woman wins compensation for unlawful detention at Heathrow Airport

First prosecution for spitting at a police officer has failed

Police face legal challenge over covert phone surveillance

Previous post Weekly Digest: 13 August 2019
Next post Weekly Digest: 9 September 2019