This week’s edition contains two judgments from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), one from the Divisional Court and one from the magistrates’ courts. In Reece the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against conviction challenging the judge’s direction on bad character evidence where the appellant had given evidence indicating he challenged the facts of a previous conviction. In Solanki and Patel the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s appeals against conviction in respect of money laundering offences in circumstances where the judge had not given the jury specific directions about the elements of the offence of tax evasion or a Brown direction. In Chawla v Government of India the Divisional Court held that there was no power to appeal under s.103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the sending, by a district judge, of a case to the Secretary of State for him to consider extradition, where under s.106(6)(c) the Divisional Court had ordered the judge to send the case to the Secretary of State.  In Serious Fraud Office v Anna Machkevitch, Jonathan Hall QC and Mohsin Zaidi appeared for the Serious Fraud Office in the first successful prosecution under section 2(13) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 for failing to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a requirement of a notice issued under section 2 of that Act.

R v Reece [2020] EWCA Crim 44

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Singh LJ on 24/01/20.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction in circumstances where he had not at trial sought directions under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to show that he had not committed an offence which had been adduced as bad character evidence, but had given evidence that indicated he challenged part of the factual basis of that conviction.

R v Solanki and Patel [2020] EWCA Crim 47

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Singh LJ on 24/01/20.

The Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s appeals against conviction in respect of money laundering offences, holding that the judge had not been required to give the jury directions about the elements of the offence of tax evasion or a Brown direction where the prosecution’s case had been put on the basis that the circumstances in which the property was handled were such as to give rise to the irresistible inference that it could only be derived from crime, rather than the property being the proceeds of specifically identified criminal conduct.

Chawla v Government of India [2020] EWHC 102 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lewis J on 23/01/20.

The Divisional Court held that there was no power to appeal under s.103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the sending, by a district judge, of a case to the Secretary of State for him to consider extradition, where under s.106(6)(c) the Divisional Court had ordered the judge to send the case to the Secretary of State. The appropriate method of challenging such a decision is to apply to re-open the High Court’s determination.

Serious Fraud Office v Anna Machkevitch

The judgment in Serious Fraud Office v Anna Machkevitch was handed down by District Judge (MC) John Zani on 30/01/20.

Jonathan Hall QC and Mohsin Zaidi appeared for the Serious Fraud Office in the first successful prosecution under section 2(13) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 for failing to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a requirement of a notice issued under section 2 of that Act.

Filming partner without their consent during sex ruled a criminal offence

“Secret Justice”: An Oxymoron and the Overdue Review

Corporate witnesses in Grenfell Tower inquiry seek immunity

Previous post Weekly Digest: 26 January 2020
Next post Weekly Digest: 10 February 2020