This week’s edition considers five judgments, one from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), one from the Court Martial Appeal Court and three from the Divisional Court. In Jones and Miszczak the Court of Appeal considered the admissibility of expert evidence from a counsellor. In H and J the Court Martial Appeal Court considered whether a judge advocate has power to dismiss a charge before a Court Martial. In Jones v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis the Divisional Court considered the scope of the power in section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions on public assemblies. In Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court the Divisional Court considered a challenge to a certificate issued under regulation 41(2) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1782), certifying the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings came to the prosecutors knowledge. Finally, in Taylor v Prosecutor General’s Office of Florence the Divisional Court considered the circumstances in which an appeal could be the relevant hearing for the purpose of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003.

R v Jones and Miszczak [2019] EWCA Crim 1570

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Coulson LJ on 30/09/19.

The Court of Appeal found that expert evidence given by a counsellor as to her opinion on trauma, its effect and the ability of people to speak about it should not have been admitted. It will only be in the rarest cases that expert or opinion evidence from a counsellor will be relevant or admissible. The starting point must always be that a counsellor’s evidence goes only to fact, restricted to the timing and nature of any complaints made during the counselling sessions. When giving that evidence, a counsellor must take great care to use objective language, and to avoid saying anything which could be construed as subjective comment or statements of personal opinion.

R v H and J [2019] EWCA Crim 1863

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 24/10/19.

The Court Martial Appeal Court held that the Judge Advocate General had erred in holding that there was no power for a judge advocate to dismiss a charge before a Court Martial. While paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not apply to a Court Martial, by virtue of rule 26 of the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/2041) a judge advocate must ensure that a comparable process can be conducted in comparable circumstances.

Jones v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down jointly by Dingemans LJ and Chamberlain J on 06/11/19.

The Divisional Court held that a public assembly for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 must be a particular assembly, in a location to which the public or any section of the public has access, which is wholly or partly open to the air, and which can be fairly described as a scene. Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if co-ordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not a public assembly for this purpose and section 14(1) does not provide a power to prohibit, rather than merely impose conditions upon, gatherings that have not yet begun.

Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court [2019] EWHC 2953 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Males LJ on 06/11/19.

The Divisional Court held that a certificate issued under regulation 41(2) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/1782), certifying the date on which evidence sufficient to justify the proceedings came to the prosecutors knowledge was conclusive evidence of that fact and could not be challenged on policy grounds or, in the absence of fraud, by reference to extraneous evidence showing that it is wrong or even plainly wrong.

Taylor v Prosecutor General’s Office of Florence [2019] EWHC 2938 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lane J on 06/11/19.

Jonathan Hall QC appeared for the appellants.

The Divisional Court held that while a full merits appeal against conviction and sentence would be the relevant hearing for the purpose of section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant hearing could not be an appeal only on points of law, where no discretion was exercised in relation to sentence.

 UK must review possible terror targets, chief coroner says

Paedophile hunters responsible for more than half of grooming prosecutions

Government announces plans to review pre-charge bail law

Previous post Weekly Digest: 4 November 2019
Next post Vote for Rawls!