 |
|
|||||||||
|
Companion Website
Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2006
November 2005
November Updates
The November Update was prepared by Michael Hirst, Professor of Criminal Justice, De Montfort University, Leicester, with assistance from Laurence Eastham, Editorial Co-ordinator, Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
- Part A: General Principles of Criminal Law
- Part B: Offences
- Part C: Road Traffic Offences
- Part D: Procedure
- Part E: Sentencing
- Part F: Evidence
- New Legislation
PART A GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
A3 General Defences
A3.36 Mistakes of Fact and Self-defence
O'Grady [1987] 3 All ER 420 has now been followed in Hatton [2005] All ER (D) 308 (Oct) (26 October 2005, CA), despite widespread criticism of the earlier ruling. Somewhat surprisingly, the Court of Appeal in Hatton held that what was said about crimes of specific intent in O'Grady formed part of the ratio decidendi of that case. This, with respect, is difficult to understand given that the court in O'Grady were not required to consider any crime of specific intent, but Hatton was a case of murder and so the point must now be merely academic. It follows that, if D is voluntarily drunk and kills in what he mistakenly imagines to be self-defence because he imagines (as in Hatton) that the deceased was attacking him with a sword, he has no defence to a charge of murder; but if he claims to be so intoxicated that he is experiencing hallucinations and imagines that he is fighting giant snakes (as in Lipman [1969] 3 All ER 410) then he can be guilty only of manslaughter. Is one really less culpable than the other?
A6 Inchoate Offences
A6.15 Parties to Conspiracies and Acquittal of Other Alleged Conspirators
Although in certain circumstances the Criminal Law Act 1977, s 5(8), permits the conviction of one alleged conspirator when all others are acquitted, it has often proved difficult to determine whether the circumstances of a given case are capable of supporting such apparently inconsistent verdicts. With the exception of cases in which there is evidence (such as confession evidence) that is admissible against one defendant only, or cases in which the identity (but not the existence) of the other conspirator(s) remains uncertain, it seems that such verdicts will usually be considered mutually inconsistent. The same is true by analogy of cases in which one defendant is convicted but in which the jury fails to agree in respect of the other(s), although in such cases it may be possible (as in Elkins [2005] EWCA Crim 2711) for the court to order a retrial of both (or all) defendants.
Elkins also illustrates the fact that evidence which may at first glance appear to incriminate one defendant rather than another may in fact be admissible against both, notably where it involves acts done in furtherance of a joint venture. See also Testouri [2003] EWCA Crim 3735, [2004] 2 Cr App R 26.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in Elkins.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in Testouri.
A6.33 Sentencing for Attempt
Specific guidance as to sentencing for offences of attempted murder has been provided by the Court of Appeal in Ford [2005] EWCA Crim 1358. This guidance takes account of the greatly increased tariffs now imposed in many cases of murder itself, and recognises that in grave cases of attempt significantly increased sentences may now be required, so as to ensure that those convicted serve approximately half the period of imprisonment that would have been imposed on conviction for the full offence.
In less serious cases of attempted murder, however, increased sentencing levels may not be required, and this includes cases where any killing would have resulted in a conviction for voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
Click here for the full text of the judgment.
A6.35 Attempt: Mens Rea
There are cases in which recklessness as to circumstances may form part of the mens rea of a criminal attempt, but nothing less than intent will suffice in respect of any attempted consequences or results. It is accordingly quite wrong for a judge to refer in his summing up to 'maliciousness' or 'recklessness' where the defendant is charged with an offence such as attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. See Boyton [2005] All ER (D) 354 (Oct) (28 October 2005, CA).
PART B OFFENCES
B1 Homicide and Related Offences
B1.31 Sentencing Guidelines: Provocation
In Lindsay [2005] All ER (D) 349 (Oct) (28 October 2005, CA), the Court of Appeal upheld an eight-year sentence of imprisonment imposed on a defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, and killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly with that sword. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder.
This apparently harsh sentence was clearly influenced by the fact that the defendant was himself a low-level cannabis dealer who kept the sword in readiness for such events, and will hopefully not be seen as setting a precedent for sentencing ordinary householders who 'go too far' when defending themselves against armed intruders.
See also A-G's Ref (No. 88 of 2005); Martin [2005] All ER (D) 366 (Oct) (31 October 2005, CA).
B2 Non-fatal Offences against the Person
B2.19 Assault: Sentencing guidelines
The principle established in McNally [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 535, namely that deterrent sentences may be required in cases where hospital or medical personnel are attacked, was followed in A-G's Ref (No. 69 of 2005); Potter [2005] All ER (D) 331 (Oct) (27 October 2005, CA).
B2.30 Resisting or Wilfully Obstructing a Constable
In DPP v Glendinning [2005] EWHC 2333 (Admin), the Administrative Court held (following Bastable v Little [1907] 1 KB 59) that no offence of wilful obstruction is committed where the defendant warns other motorists of a police speed trap ahead, unless it is established that those warned were either already speeding or were likely to do so at the location of the speed trap.
Click here for the full text of the judgment.
B2.41 Wounding or Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent: Alternative Verdicts
Lahaye [2005] EWCA Crim 2847 confirms that on a charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm a conviction for malicious wounding (under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s. 20 OAPA) is available even if not expressly charged on the indictment, and even if the prosecution have presented the case as one of deliberate and premeditated stabbing. The Court of Appeal nevertheless recommended that it would be preferable, in such cases, for the lesser offence to be included on the face of the indictment.Click here for the full judgment in Lahaye.
B3 Sexual Offences
B3.84 Meeting a Child following Sexual Grooming: Sentence
In T [2005] EWCA Crim 2681, the Court of Appeal upheld a longer than commensurate sentence of eight years' imprisonment with an extended licence period of two years, imposed following a guilty plea. The appellant, aged 43, had purported to befriend a girl aged nine. He had done very little with her before she became suspicious and reported his approaches, but he had a number of previous convictions (including one for rape) and was described as a 'relentless, predatory paedophile'.B10 Terrorism, Piracy and Hijacking
B10.7 Membership of a Proscribed Organisation
By virtue of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2892), the following 15 organisations are added at the end of the Terrorism Act 2000, sch. 2 and thus are classified as proscribed organisations:: Al Ittihad Al Islamia; Ansar Al Islam; Ansar Al Sunna; Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain; Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami; Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami (Bangladesh); Harakat-ul-Mujahideen/Alami; Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin; Islamic Jihad Union; Jamaat ul-Furquan; Jundallah; Khuddam ul-Islam; Lashkar-e Jhangvi; Libyan Islamic Fighting Group; Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan.
B11 Offences affecting Public Order
B11.100 Public Nuisance
The definition of the common-law offence of public nuisance has been clarified by the rulings of the House of Lords in the conjoined cases of Goldstein and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63. Their lordships confirmed the continued existence of the offence and rejected arguments that it was inherently vague and incompatible with the ECHR, but advised that, in cases where specific statutory offences appear to have been committed, charges brought under the legislation in question will usually be more appropriate.
For the full judgments in the case, click here.
B11.106 The Public Nature of the Nuisance
Johnson [1996] 2 Cr App R 434 has been overruled by the House of Lords in Goldstein and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63. Lord Bingham said at [37] and [38]:
"I cannot. . . accept that Norbury [1978] Crim LR 435 and Johnson (Anthony). . .were correctly decided. . . To permit a conviction of causing a public nuisance to rest on an injury caused to separate individuals rather than on an injury suffered by the community or a significant section of it as a whole was to contradict the rationale of the offence and pervert its nature, in Convention terms to change the essential constituent elements of the offence to the detriment of the accused. The offence was cut adrift from its intellectual moorings. . . . The crime of public nuisance does not extend to separate and individual telephone calls, however persistent and vexatious, and the extension of the crime to cover postal communications would be a further illegitimate extension."For the full judgments in the case, click here.
B11.107 Public Nuisance: Mens Rea
In Goldstein and Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63, the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal's earlier ruling in Goldstein [2003] EWCA Crim 3450, but did so largely because they took a different view of the facts in that particular case. The mens rea requirement as stated in Shorrock [1994] QB 279 was approved.
For the full judgments in the case, click here.
B11.181 Drunk and Disorderly Behaviour
In R (H) v CPS [2005] EWHC 2459 (Admin), it was held that no offence is committed under the Criminal Justice Act 1967, s 91(1) where the defendant is proved to have become disorderly only after his arrest for that offence. The defendant had been arguing with door staff outside a public house, but the justices declined to categorise this as disorderly behaviour and therefore concluded that his arrest had been unjustified.
click here for the full text of the judgment.
B20 Offences related to Drugs
B20.22 The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001
The Misuse of Drugs and the Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2864), regs. 2 to 13 amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Regulation 3 amends the definition of extended formulary nurse prescriber (EFNPs) and the definition of register. Regulation 4 inserts a new reg. 6A(1)(f), enabling certain persons to supply ascorbic acid for the purpose of administering or preparing controlled drugs. Regulation 5 inserts a new reg. 6B, which specifies which controlled drugs EFNPs can prescribe in which circumstances. Regulation 6 substitutes reg. 7(4) and (5), which provides that EFNPs can administer, and persons can administer in accordance with the directions of an EFNP, any drug which EFNPs are permitted to prescribe under reg. 6B so long as it is administered for a purpose for which it may be so prescribed. Regulations 7 and 8 substitute regs. 8(7) and 9(7) and specify which controlled drugs EFNPs can supply in which circumstances. Amendments in regs. 9 to 12 relate to the form of prescriptions and the keeping of records in computerised form. Regulation 13 revokes para. 2 of sch. 5 to the 2001 Regulations, removing any preparation of cocaine containing not more than 0.1% of cocaine from the exception which applies to the prohibition on importation, exportation and possession.
B20.106 Sentencing Guidelines: Class A Drug Offences
The sentencing guidance previously given in Afonso [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 560, [2004] EWCA Crim 2342 was 'explained' by the Court of Appeal in Davies and other appeals [2005] EWCA Crim 2437. Rose LJ said:
"What was not expressly said in Afonso and what we now make clear is that the sentence level which was indicated of the order of two to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment was intended for those with no criminal record. Those with significant criminal records, even without prior drugs convictions, do not have the mitigating factor of good character which is, of course, material to the sentencing process. They are therefore likely to receive a somewhat higher sentence. . ."
Sentences of three and a half years (as in Afonso itself) were accordingly held to be appropriate in two cases before the court involving non-retail supply by defendants with significant criminal records.
The court further reiterated that Afonso was never intended to affect the level of sentences applicable to cases involving retail drug supply, and that if what is supplied is represented to be a Class A drug and is intended to be purchased as a Class A drug, but is not in fact a Class A drug (eg it is paracetamol), that will, generally speaking, make very little, if any, difference to the level of sentence which is appropriate.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in Afonso.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in Davies and other appeals.
PART C ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES
C3 Offences relating to Driving Triable on Indictment
C3.6 Manslaughter: Sentencing
In Brown [2005] EWCA Crim 2868, a sentence of 10 years' detention in a young offender institution was upheld in respect of a defendant, aged 20, who deliberately drove his car into a head on collision with another vehicle whilst intent on committing suicide. The court observed that he must have known he would kill or injure at least one other person and the case was therefore exceedingly grave even if other aggravating features were not present. It is not clear however whether any credit was given for his guilty plea, as it should have been, even if (as the court observed) the evidence made it almost impossible for guilt to be denied.
Click here for full text of the judgment.
PART D PROCEDURE
D1 Police Powers
D1.4 Elements of Lawful Arrest
An arrest does not become unlawful merely because the police officer initially tells the suspect, 'You are being detained in order for us to establish whether an offence has been committed. Now stay where you are' and only goes on to 'formally complete the arrest' a few minutes later when the facts have been established: see Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381.
Judge P said in Fiak (at [14]): "[The officer] sensibly elected to postpone the formal completion of the arrest until the facts were more fully investigated. In our judgment this was all part of a single process, not to be artificially compartmentalised, or fragmented into a series of individual processes. In these circumstances, her conduct was not rendered unlawful because she did not formally use the word "arrest" until her brief investigation into the appellant's story was completed."
Click here for the judgment in Fiak.
D8 Disclosure
D8.4 Defence Disclosure
As to the content of a defence statement, the observation of the Court of Appeal in Bryant [2005] EWCA Crim 2079 may be worth noting. Judge LJ said:
"We note that the defence case statement was woefully inadequate. It consisted of a general denial of the counts in the indictment, accompanied by the sentence "The defendant takes issue with any witness purporting to give evidence contrary to his denials". That sort of observation is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not the purpose of a defence case statement.'
Click here for the judgment in Bryant.
D23 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
D23.2 Nature of the Offending Behaviour
In R (on the application of Mills) v Birmingham Magistrates' Court [2005] All ER (D) 94 (Oct) (11 October 2005, Admin) it was held that some acts of theft may involve 'anti-social behaviour' within the meaning of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 1(1) (or s 1C(2)) but that furtive acts of shoplifting could not be shown to have had any such effect.
D23.7 ASBOS following Conviction in Criminal Proceedings
Guidance as to the imposition of ASBOS following conviction has been provided by the Court of Appeal in Boness and other appeals [2005] EWCA Crim 2395.
- An ASBO must be precise and capable of being understood by the offender. The court should ask itself, before making an order, whether the terms of the order were clear so that the defendant would know precisely what it was that he was prohibited from doing.
- Following a finding that the defendant had acted in an anti-social manner (whether or not the act constituted a criminal offence), the test for making an order that prohibited the offender from doing something is one of necessity. Each separate order prohibiting a person from doing a specified thing must be necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts. Accordingly, any order must be tailor-made for the individual defendant, not designed on a word processor for use in every case.
- Given the requirement that the order must be necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by the defendant, the purpose of an ASBO is not to punish. The use of an ASBO to punish a defendant is unlawful. A court should not allow itself to be diverted by a defendant's representative's seeking the imposition of an ASBO at the sentencing stage in the hope that the court might make such an order as an alternative to prison or other sanction. It might be better for the court to decide the appropriate sentence and then move on to consider whether an ASBO should be made or not after sentence has been passed, albeit at the same hearing.
- It follows that the court should not impose an order which prohibits a defendant from committing a specified criminal offence, if the sentence which could be passed following conviction for the offence should in itself be a sufficient deterrent. (5) A court should in any case be reluctant to impose an order which prohibits a defendant from committing a specified criminal offence. If a court wishes to make an order prohibiting a group of youngsters from racing cars or motor bikes on an estate or driving at excessive speed (anti-social behaviour for those living on the estate), then the order should not (normally) prohibit driving whilst disqualified. It should prohibit, for example, the offender whilst on the estate from taking part in, or encouraging, racing or driving at excessive speed. It might also prevent the group from congregating with named others in a particular area of the estate. Such an order gives those responsible for enforcing order on the estate the opportunity to take action to prevent the anti-social conduct, it is to be hoped, before it takes place.
- The terms of the order must be proportionate and commensurate with the risk to be guarded against. That is particularly important where an order might interfere with a defendant's right under the European Convention on Human Rights as protected under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Click here for the judgment in Boness.
An ASBO imposed under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 1C does not become invalid merely because the form setting out the terms of the order and the conviction giving rise to it fails to specify the behaviour that was found to have been 'likely to cause harassment or distress to any person': see English [2005] EWCA Crim 2690.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in English.
D24 Appeal to the Court of Appeal
D24.24 Inconsistent Verdicts
An example of inconsistent verdicts returned in respect of co-defendants is provided by Green [2005] EWCA Crim 2513, in which the jury managed to convict the appellant of murder and his co-accused only of manslaughter, even though the weight of evidence had pointed inexorably to it being the co-accused who had killed the deceased in the course of a robbery which they had committed together. The contrasting verdicts were not formally inconsistent, but were nevertheless inexplicable. A verdict of manslaughter was substituted on appeal.
Click here for full text of the judgment.
D24.25 Conduct of the Trial Judge
In Bryant [2005] EWCA Crim 2079, the Court of Appeal rejected criticism of the trial judge based on his attempts to keep the case moving at a reasonable pace, and warned that that the efforts of trial judges in that respect would be supported; but the court did uphold complaints that the judge had appeared to favour the prosecution case above that of the defence. Judge LJ said at [29]:
"We do not think it can be right for a judge ever to give the impression that he favours the prosecution case against that of the defendant. Of course, he should, in a case where the prosecution case is a strong case, present the case to the jury as the strong case that it is. The summing-up has to reflect the whole of the evidence. Similarly, if the defence case is a strong case, or the evidence in support of it appears to be, the judge must fairly put the strong defence case before the jury. The summing-up must be neutral and that means it must reflect the case that has been presented to the jury as a balanced whole. What the judge's conduct of the case cannot do, and is wholly impermissible, is to allow the jury, who are the fact-finders with the ultimate responsibility for returning the verdict in the individual case, to be left with the impression that he favours one side rather than another, and in particular the prosecution rather than defence, by conduct of the kind described in this case, and by the contrasting way in which he behaved in relation to the witnesses for the prosecution as opposed to the witnesses for the defence."
Click here for the judgment in Bryant.
D25 Procedure on Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
D25.1 The Rules
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentences: Appeals in Transitional Cases) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2798) makes provision similar to the provision in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 for the purpose of the new transitional appeal introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sch. 22, para. 14(1). Paragraph 14(1) provides a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, if appropriate, to prisoners who have either had their minimum term of a mandatory life sentence reviewed or determined by the High Court under the transitional provisions in sch. 22 (see Blackstone's Criminal Practice, E4).
D29 Public Funding and Costs
D29.8 Recovery of Costs
The Criminal Defence Service (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2783) amend the Criminal Defence Service (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No. 856), reg 9 in order to increase the level of income a funded defendant must have before his income is taken into account for the purpose of calculating his financial resources from 25,000 to 25,250.
D29.12 Proper Approach to Making of a Defendant's Costs Order
Defendants who accept a caution and are then acquitted when the prosecution offer no evidence do not thereby lose their rights to a costs order. See R (on the application of Stoddart and another) v Oxfordshire Magistrates' Court [2005] All ER (D) 97 (Oct) (11 October 2005, Admin).
PART E SENTENCING
E11 Community Sentences: Offenders aged under 18
E11.3 Breach of Community Order
Any alleged breach of a community order is a criminal matter and requires proof to a criminal standard. Where in proceedings for an alleged breach of an order there is evidence that the person before the court has the same name, date of birth and address as the person who was previously convicted and made subject to the order, it is open to the court to draw the inference that he is the same person. This inference should be drawn unless there are other factors which would indicate the contrary: West Yorkshire Probation Board v Boulter [2005] EWHC 2342 (Admin).
Click here for the full text of the judgment.
E21 Confiscation Orders
E21.6 Determination of Benefit from Criminal Conduct
In proceedings brought under the Drug Trafficking Act 1984, it was held in Odesanya [2005] All ER (D) 221 (Oct) that, where drugs of a given value imported by the defendant had been intercepted and seized and there was evidence linking him to an earlier (but successful) importation, it could be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the earlier importation involved drugs of a similar quantity and value to those seized in the course of the second operation; and a confiscation order could be imposed accordingly.
E23 Exclusions and Disqualifications
E23.5 Disqualification from Driving where Motor Vehicle Used for Committing or Facilitating Commission of an Offence
In Gisbourne [2005] EWCA Crim 2491, the Court of Appeal upheld a disqualification order imposed on an 'animal rights' campaigner who had used a hire car when conducting a series of acts of criminal damage and intimidation against employees of Huntington Life Sciences Ltd over a two-day period. Given that the disqualification order would expire before her release from a five and a half year prison sentence, it might have looked pointless, but the court observed that, 'if a disqualification from driving is part of the appellant's record and appears upon her driving licence, that may well have, or be capable of having, an effect upon her ability to hire cars in the future.'
In contrast, an anti-social behaviour order for two years was made to take effect on the appellant's release from prison.
Click here for the full text of the judgment.
E23.8 Restraining Orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The duration of an order made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 5(4) can be extended if a good reason for so doing is established in the form of a change of relevant circumstances: DPP v Hall [2005] All ER (D) 37 (Oct) (5 October 2005).
PART F EVIDENCE
F18 Evidence of Identification
F18.6 Where Identification Procedures may be Unnecessary
Forbes [2000] UKHL 66 was followed by the Court of Appeal in Muhidinz [2005] EWCA Crim 2758.
Click here for the full text of the judgment in Muhidinz.
F18.28 Use of Visual Images and Evidence at Trial
A-G's Reference (No. 2 of 2002) [2002] All ER (D) 73 (Oct) [2003] 1 Cr App R 321 was applied in West [2005] All ER (D) 364 (Oct) (31 October 2005, CA).
NEW LEGISLATION
Criminal Procedure Rule Committee (Amendment of Constitution) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2625)
This Order amends the Courts Act 2003, s. 70(2)(b) to make any judge of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal eligible for appointment to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee.
Courts Act 2003 (Commencement No. 11 and Transitional Provision) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2744)
This Order brings into force provisions of the Act concerned with family proceeding.
These Regulations amend the Criminal Defence Service (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No. 856), reg 9 in order to increase the level of income a funded defendant must have before his income is taken into account for the purpose of calculating his financial resources from 25,000 to 25,250.
Justices' Clerks (Amendment) Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2796)
These Rules amend the Justices' Clerks Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No. 545) primarily to make provision enabling a justices' clerk or an assistant clerk to carry out functions in proceedings under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and in relation to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. They also include a new r. 5 which modifies the schedule to the principal rules pending the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sch. 32, para. 125 (breach and amendment of curfew and exclusion orders).
This Order makes provision similar to the provision in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 for the purpose of the new transitional appeal introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sch. 22, para. 14(1). Paragraph 14(1) provides a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, if appropriate, to prisoners who have either had their minimum term of a mandatory life sentence reviewed or determined by the High Court under the transitional provisions in sch. 22.
Article 2 makes provision corresponding to s. 11(3) of the 1968 Act and sets out the powers of the Court of Appeal on appeal. Article 3 makes provision corresponding to s. 18 of the 1968 Act and gives the time limit for giving notice of application for leave to appeal. Article 4 makes provision corresponding to s. 20 and allows the Registrar to refer groundless applications for leave to appeal for summary determination. Article 5 makes provision corresponding to s. 21 and provides that the Registrar must organise hearings, documents and exhibits for the appeal or for an application for leave to appeal. Article 6 makes provision corresponding to s. 22 and provides in what circumstances an appellant who is in custody is entitled to be present on the hearing of his appeal. Article 7 makes provision corresponding to s. 23(1) and sets out the Court of Appeal's powers on an appeal to order the production of documents and other evidence and to receive evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies. Article 8 makes provision corresponding to s. 31 and sets out which of the Court of Appeal's powers may be exercised by a single judge. Article 9 makes provision corresponding to s. 31A and sets out which of the Court of Appeal's powers may be exercised by the Registrar. Article 10 makes provision corresponding to s. 31B and sets out that the powers of the Court of Appeal to make procedural directions may be exercised by a single judge or the Registrar. Article 11 makes provision corresponding to s. 31C and states that procedural directions, made by the Registrar or a single judge, may be appealed to a single judge or the Court of Appeal respectively. Article 12 makes provision corresponding to s. 33 and provides that an appeal to the House of Lords only lies with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. Article 13 makes provision corresponding to s. 34 and gives the time limit for giving notice of application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Article 14 makes provision corresponding to s. 35 and deals with the hearing and disposal of an appeal to the House of Lords. Article 15 makes provision corresponding to s. 38 and provides that a defendant who is in custody is not entitled to attend the hearing of an appeal by the House of Lords unless he is authorised to do so by the House of Lords or the Court of Appeal. Article 16 makes provision corresponding to s. 44 and sets out which powers of the Court of Appeal in relation to appeals in the House of Lords may be exercised by a single judge.
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2848)
This Order brings into force, on 20 October 2005, the following provisions of the Act:
- ss. 32 to 34 (the victims' code)
- s. 47and sch. 7 (investigation by Parliamentary Commissioner in relation to victims' rights)
- s. 54(1), (2)(a) and (b), (3)(a) and (b) and (4) to (8) (disclosure of information in relation to victims' rights)
Regulations 2 to 13 of these Regulations amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Regulation 3 amends the definition of extended formulary nurse prescriber (EFNPs) and the definition of register. Regulation 4 inserts a new reg. 6A(1)(f), enabling certain persons to supply ascorbic acid for the purpose of administering or preparing controlled drugs. Regulation 5 inserts a new reg. 6B, which specifies which controlled drugs EFNPs can prescribe in which circumstances. Regulation 6 substitutes reg. 7(4) and (5), which provides that EFNPs can administer, and persons can administer in accordance with the directions of an EFNP, any drug which EFNPs are permitted to prescribe under reg. 6B so long as it is administered for a purpose for which it may be so prescribed. Regulations 7 and 8 substitute regs. 8(7) and 9(7) and specify which controlled drugs EFNPs can supply in which circumstances.
Regulation 9 amends reg. 15 of the 2001 Regulations to enable prescriptions to be written in any form, including typing, printing and any other mode of reproducing words in a visible form, with only the signature necessarily being handwritten. Regulation 10 amends reg. 20 of the 2001 Regulations to provide that registers can be kept in a computerised form which is in accordance with specified best practice guidance. Regulation 11 inserts a new reg. 24A, which provides that records may be preserved in a computerised form which is in accordance with specified best practice guidance. Regulation 12 amends reg. 26 so as to enable the Secretary of State or an authorised person to request that a register which is kept in computerised form be produced by sending a copy of it in computerised form to the appropriate person.
Regulation 13 revokes para. 2 of sch. 5 to the 2001 Regulations, removing any preparation of cocaine containing not more than 0.1% of cocaine from the exception which applies to the prohibition on importation, exportation and possession. Regulation 14 makes a consequential amendment to the Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 1001).
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2892)
By virtue of this Order, 15 organisations are classified as proscribed organisations by being added to the list in the Terrorism Act 2000, sch. 2 (see B10.7 above for the list of organisations added).
The Magistrates' Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2930)
These rules amend the principal Rules of 1981 (SI 1981 No. 552) in relation to the family jurisdiction of magistrates' courts.
The Local Justice Areas (No. 2) Order 2005 SI 2005 No. 2949)
This Order provides for the reorganisation of the local justice areas in the Dyfed Powys and amends the schedule to the Local Justice Areas Order 2005 (SI 2005 No. 554) accordingly.
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.3) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 2987)
These Regulations amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1078) in relation to construction requirements for minibuses and coaches.
About this book
Price, bibliographic details, and more information on the book