This week’s edition considers one judgment from the Supreme Court, three judgments from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), two judgments from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and one judgment from the Divisional Court. In R (Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department the Supreme Court considered the scope of imprisonment for the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment. In Nguygen the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered whether evidence that had already been admitted against one defendant could subsequently be admitted against a co-defendant under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In Odum-Toland the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his conviction based on various deficiencies in the judge’s summing up. In Murphy the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the admissibility of a non-defendant’s bad character. In Hajiyeva v National Crime Agency the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court not to discharge the unexplained wealth order made against her. In R (QSA, Broadfoot and ARB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Justice the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) considered a challenge to the criminalisation of soliciting  and loitering for the purposes of prostitution under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 and the police retention of data relating to those convictions. In Re National Crime Agency the Divisional Court considered whether a disclosure order could be made under section 357 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of funds that were the subject of account freezing orders made in a separate frozen funds investigation.

R (Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4

The unanimous judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by Lady Hale on 12/02/20.

The Supreme Court held that the unlawful imposition of a curfew between 23.00 to 7.00 by the Secretary of State amounted to false imprisonment and that there were good reasons for not eliding the concept of imprisonment for the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment with the concept of deprivation of liberty for the purpose of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R v Nguygen [2020] EWCA Crim 140

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Flaux LJ on 05/02/20.

The Court of Appeal ruled that evidence that had already been admitted against one defendant could subsequently be admitted against a co-defendant under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and that the cross-admission of hearsay evidence against an accused only after closing speeches was undesirable but did not render the conviction unsafe.

R v Odum-Toland [2020] EWCA Crim 124

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Thirlwall LJ on 12/02/20.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction based on deficiencies in the summing up noting that although the judge could have taken a more systematic approach to his summing up, viewed overall, the summing up was not confusing or inadequate, nor did it render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe.

R v Murphy [2020] EWCA Crim 137

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 12/02/20.

The Court of Appeal ruled that in the context of a trial for offences of rape where the defence case was that the relationship was consensual and where a witness called by the defence gave evidence that he had seen the defendant and the complainant engaging in a consensual relationship, the judge had been entitled to admit, under section 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that witness’s previous convictions for serious sexual offences, and that the witness knew the appellant as he had been released from prison to the same bail hostel, as evidence potentially relevant to his credibility.

Hajiyeva v National Crime Agency [2020] EWCA Civ 108

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 05/02/20.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court not to discharge the unexplained wealth order made against her, holding that her husband was a politically exposed person, that the income requirements had been met, and that in the circumstances she was not entitled to claim the privilege against self-incrimination or spousal privilege.

Jonathan Hall QC appeared for the National Crime Agency.

R (QSA, Broadfoot and ARB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWCA Civ 130

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Bean LJ on 10/02/20.

The Court of Appeal allowed in part the appellant’s appeal, granting permission for judicial review of whether the recording and/or retention of data concerning convictions under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 was in contravention of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Re National Crime Agency [2020] EWHC 268 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Davis LJ on 12/02/20.

The Divisional Court held that the Crown Court judge had erred in concluding that section 357(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 precluded him from making a disclosure order in respect of funds that were the subject of account freezing orders made in a separate frozen funds investigation. To be precluded from the disclosure order regime of section 357, the application must be in relation to a frozen funds (or detained cash or detained property) investigation and here the application had been made in relation to a separate money laundering investigation.

Louis Mably QC appeared as an advocate to the court.

Judge orders MI5 not to delete databanks before end of surveillance trial

Legislation proposed to end automatic early release of terrorists

Touts found guilty of fraud over £11m ticket reselling scheme

Previous post The luck of the law – when is criminal conduct a matter of concern to the international community?
Next post ‘Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing’?