Court of Appeal dismisses appeal relating to an undertaking not to prosecute and a Norwich Pharmacal Order
R v Jones  EWCA Crim 1195
The Appellant was convicted in the Crown Court in 2018 of one count of conspiracy to defraud DAS, her former employer. Her co-conspirators, Paul Asplin and David Kearns, were also convicted on this count having been previously employed by the same company. The conspiracy involved the three co-conspirators setting up and running another company, Medreport, […]
Warren & Ors v R.  EWCA Crim 413
The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned the convictions of the ‘Shrewsbury 24’ after a referral to the Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The appellants were charged with conspiracy to intimidate, unlawful assembly, and affray following the first national building workers’ strike in 1972. The convictions were appealed on two grounds of abuse […]
R v Thacker and Ors  EWCA Crim 97
The ‘Stanstead 15’, a group of protestors who were convicted after preventing a deportation flight from taking off from Stanstead Airport, had their convictions overturned today in the Court of Appeal. The group had been convicted under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 of endangering safety at the airport by causing intentional disruption to its […]
R v Syed  EWCA Crim 2809
The applicant wished to argue that decisive prosecution evidence in the case against the applicant from an undercover operation should be excluded pursuant ECHR, art 6. The applicant sought the certification of a point general public importance for an appeal to the Supreme Court, to determine the continued correctness of R v Looseley  UKHL 53, binding on the Court, which held that the relevant English law on entrapment is derived from the common law.
Held: there is no arguable case of entrapment on the facts and, equally, no arguable case that there was any material difference between English law and the Strasbourg jurisprudence such as to cast any doubt on Looseley complying with ECHR, art 6.
Roberts & Ors v R (Liberty and Friends of the Earth Intervening)  EWCA Crim 2739
The immediate custodial sentence imposed on the appellants was manifestly excessive. By the time of the hearing, the appellants had been in custody for three weeks meaning that they had served a sentence equivalent to six weeks. The Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to impose a community order with a punitive element. The time in custody represented adequate punishment.