Demonstration resources
Chapter 01
Para 1.12, note 13 The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Pt 7 empowering a judge in the Crown Court to permit a trial without a jury in the case of potential or actual jury tampering were brought into force on 24 July 2006 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No 13 and Transitional Provision) Order 2006. However, the controversial provisions relating to the power of a judge to permit a trial without a jury in a case of serious or complex fraud remain unimplemented.
Para 1.29 For a valuable discussion of James; Karimi see Elvin ‘Doctrine of Precedent and Provocation Defence: a Comment on R v James’ (2006) 69 MLR 819.
Para 1.46, note 131 In Thet v DPP (2006) Times, 1 November, DC, Lord Phillips CJ, with whom the other member of the Divisional Court agreed, questioned whether it was appropriate by the use of the rule in Pepper v Hart to extend the ambit of an ambiguous statute so as to impose criminal liability on a defendant where, in the absence of the parliamentary material, the court would not do so. Lord Phillips stated that it was at least arguable that, if a criminal statute was ambiguous, the defendant should have the benefit of the ambiguity.
Para 1.55 For a recent example of the reading down of a statutory provision governing an offence so as to make it compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 10, see Holding [2006] 1 WLR 1040, CA.
Para 1.59 In Lambeth LBC v Kay [2006] 4 All ER 128, the House of Lords held that where a domestic court (ie a court in England and Wales) would normally be bound to follow the decision of a court higher in the domestic hierarchy of courts, but that decision appears to be inconsistent with a later decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the domestic court is bound to follow the binding domestic precedent. The House added that, if a judge in a domestic court considers a binding precedent to be (or possibly to be) inconsistent with a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, he may express that view and give leave to appeal.
| View print version |
| Text size: A A A |
|
|