This week’s Digest considers a number of cases, all judgments handed down by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Items of particular interest include: Hayes, where the court considered whether the services provided as a wife and mother constitute “valuable consideration” for the purposes of a tainted gift under s. 78(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; MK, where the court considered the incidence of the legal and evidential burden for the defence under s. 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; and Pogmore, where the court clarified the scope of the offence of blackmail.

R v. Hayes [2018] EWCA Crim 682

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by Davis LJ on 28.03.18.

The issue in this appeal was whether the family services which an individual provides as a wife and mother constitute valuable consideration for the purposes of a tainted gift under s. 78(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It was held that they do not. The tainted gift provisions are drafted in terms of money’s worth, to be objectively assessed.

 

R v. MK; R v. Gega (a.k.a. Maione) [2018] EWCA Crim 667

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon on 28.03.18.

The issue in these conjoined appeals was whether the legal burden of proof rests on the defendant when a defence is raised under s. 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or whether the defendant bears only an evidential burden, with the prosecution having to disprove to the criminal standard one or more of the elements of the defence. The court held that the burden on the defence was only evidential; the defence did not reverse the legal burden.

 

R v. Mohammed [2018] EWCA Crim 675

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Bean LJ on 28.03.18.

This was an application for leave to appeal against conviction on a single count of rape based on fresh evidence. The evidence purported to support the applicant’s version of events and, on the applicant’s submission, raised real doubts about the safety of the conviction. Leave was refused; in the view of the court, the fresh evidence did not call into question the safety of the conviction.

 

R v. Cuni and others [2018] EWCA Crim 600

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE on 27.03.18.

This was a series of appeals against sentence on the basis they were excessive since the lead sentence was excessive. The majority of the appeals against sentence, with exception of one to a limited extent, were dismissed. It did not follow that an error in the lead sentence did not necessarily entail error in the lower sentences. Whether a different appellant’s sentence should be reduced depended on a variety of factors.

 

R v Sami [2018] EWCA Crim 522

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Thirlwall LJ on 23.3.18

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to import and supply class A drugs and appealed on a number of grounds.  The Court of Appeal, dismissing the defendant’s appeal, held that decisions taken by defence counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous convictions, to call a co-accused as a witness and not to correct an alleged omission from the defence statement were not unreasonable or outside the range of decisions open to competent counsel.

 

R v Hanrahan [2018] EWCA Crim 438

The judgment, which is unavailable, was handed down by Goss J on 27.2.18.

The defendant was convicted of one offence or rape and one offence of sexual assault on the same victim.  For the rape, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of nine and a half years.  For the sexual assault, he was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal concluded that although the judge had been entitled to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, a fixed term of 17 years’ imprisonment should have been imposed, rather than 19.

 

R v Pogmore [2017] EWCA Crim 925

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 4.7.17.

The Court of Appeal held that the offence of blackmail can be committed when the demand with menaces was sent from abroad to someone within England and Wales.

 

Barristers vote to walk out in protest at government cuts

 

Worboys case will lead to huge changes to parole

 

All MPs to be sent Secret Barrister Book

 

Government rewrites UK ‘torture guidance’ in secret

 

Previous post Weekly Digest: 27 March 2018
Next post The Brexit Transition Agreement – What it Means for Criminal Justice Cooperation