This week’s Digest considers four judgments of the Court of Appeal.  Two of the cases were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General on the basis that the sentences passed by the respective trial judges had been unduly lenient.  In the third case, the Court of Appeal considered whether a decision not to permit the indictment to be amended constituted a terminating ruling.  In the fourth case, the Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant’s conviction for manipulating LIBOR was safe despite the failure of the prosecution’s expert to comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules. 

 

R v Cook [2018] EWCA Crim 530

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by Treacy LJ on 14.03.18.

This was an appeal against sentence on the grounds that the judge had miscategorised the offence of attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity as Category 1A. The appeal was allowed; recent authority showed that the correct category, in the circumstances, should have been 3A.

 

R v Pollard [2018] EWCA Crim 439

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by McCombe LJ on 13.03.18.

This was an application to refer to the Court of Appeal sentences passed on two offenders for sexual crimes against children which he submitted were unduly lenient. The application was successful and the original sentences, of 15 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years, were substituted for sentences of immediate imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months and 3 years and 6 months respectively.

 

R v Ikram [2018] EWCA Crim 440

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Treacy LJ on 14.03.18.

The Crown applied for permission to appeal against the trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer in a misconduct of public office case.  The Court of Appeal held that under s. 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the court could not reverse a terminating ruling unless it was satisfied that it was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle or had not been reasonable for the judge to have made.  It was observed that despite the fact the phrase ‘terminating ruling’ was not in the legislation, it was used to distinguish certain appeals from evidentiary rulings.  A ruling upholding a submission of no case to answer was a terminating ruling, but a refusal to permit amendment of an indictment did not necessarily have that effect.  Whether it did so would depend upon the facts of the case.

 

R v Pabon [2018] EWCA Crim 420

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Gross LJ on 13.03.18.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud.  At his trial, an expert gave evidence of behalf of the prosecution.  Two co-defendants were also convicted but their convictions were quashed on appeal.  At the re-trial of the two co-defendants cross examination on new material concerning one of the prosecution’s experts revealed that he had given evidence beyond his general knowledge of banking.  The two co-defendants were acquitted and the appellant argued that the prosecution’s reliance upon the expert made his conviction unsafe.  The Court of Appeal agreed that the expert had strayed into areas outside of his expertise, but held that there was no causal link between his failings and the issue of dishonesty, which was the central issue at trial.

 

In the News

Lawyers seek prosecution of Aung San Suu Kyi for war crimes

 

Gibraltar threatens to rescind citizens’ rights if Spain use veto on Brexit deal

 

Irish High Court refuses extradition over concerns about Polish justice reforms

 

Previous post Metropolitan Police Commissioner v DSD: an avalanche of new claims for investigatory failings?
Next post Seizing Cryptocurrency – R. v Teresko (Sergejs) (2)