This week’s Digest considers four judgments. The first was handed down by the Supreme Court and concerned an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate and rights under article 8 ECHR. The remaining three are judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The first of these addressed whether the entrapment principles which apply to state actors apply to non-state actors; the second whether a conviction for a drugs offence was unsafe after the law on the treatment of victims of human trafficking had changed; and the third whether findings of contempt of court were rendered unsafe by virtue of the fact that the appropriate procedure was not followed.

R (AR) v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and anor [2018] UKSC 47

The judgment is available here. Lord Carnwath gave the judgment, with which the rest of the court agreed.

The issue in this appeal was whether the disclosure of an acquittal without full explanation of the evidence at trial on an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate was a proportionate interference with the appellant’s rights under article 8 ECHR. The Supreme Court held that it was; in the instant case, it was proportionate to disclose the acquittal when the appellant was applying for a job as a lecturer. The Supreme Court also commented on the proper role of an appellate court in reviewing a lower court’s decision as to proportionality; an appeal is a review, not a rehearing, and the test is whether the judge erred in principle in reaching their conclusion.

 

R v. TL [2018] EWCA Crim 1821

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 31.07.18.

The issue in this case was whether the judge, in staying proceedings in the Crown Court against TL, had erred in applying the entrapment principles articulated by the House of Lords in R v. Loosely [2001] UKHL 53; [2001] 1 WLR 2060 to non-state actors. The Court of Appeal concluded that the judge had erred; the test was essentially whether the conduct of the non-state actor would compromise the court’s integrity.

 

R v. GS [2018] EWCA Crim 1824

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Gross on 31.07.18.

The issue in this appeal was whether a conviction for a drugs offence was rendered unsafe by the fact that, as a victim of human trafficking, the applicant had been acting under duress. The application for leave failed; although the Court accepted that the applicant was a victim of human trafficking, there was no basis on which it could be said her conviction was unsafe. Her account of being under duress had, essentially,  been rejected at trial and there was no material change in the applicant’s circumstances.

 

Re Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) [2018] EWCA Crim 1856

The judgment, available here, was handed down on 01.08.18 by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ.

The issue in this case was whether failure to follow the appropriate procedure in Part 48 of the Criminal Procedure Rules in contempt proceedings meant that the findings of contempt had to be quashed. It was held that the failure gave rise to safeguards being overlooked that occasioned real prejudice to the appellant. The matter was ordered to be reheard.

Louis Mably QC appeared as Advocate to the Court.

 

Defendants ‘gaming system’ to get domestic violence cases dropped

 

Cut to legal aid fees for evidence work ruled unlawful

 

Adopt inquisitorial justice system, says Toynbee Hall paper

 

Previous post Case Comment: the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tommy Robinson’s case
Next post Weekly Digest: 13 August 2018