Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2025] EWHC 1527 (Admin) – S 19 PACE – s 1 DDA. - fact that possession of an item is an offence does not prevent it being taken into possession of officer by way of lawful seizure.
- fact that s 1 DDA provides no one may have prohibited dog in their possession, and only specifies seizure as an exception when carried out under DDA power, does not prevent police constable exercising power of seizure under s 19 PACE.
- s 1 DDA concerned with defining an offence whereas s 19 PACE concerned with investigating an offence.
- clear words would have been required in DDA to expressly exclude powers of seizure under PACE.
DPP v Jackson [2025] EWHC 2797 (Admin) – S 39A CJA 1988. - statutory time limit for prosecution.
- exclusionary rule: reference to “after” or “from” indicates starting date excluded from calculation of time limit.
- corresponding date rule: when time limit is number of months, period ends on corresponding date in appropriate month.
Iqbal and Anor v City of Wolverhampton Council [2025] EWCA Crim 498 - S 35ZA(3) RDA – s 1 CLA. 1) a jury could make its own comparison of alleged copyright-infringing goods with the registered design drawings without relying on expert evidence.
2) the question whether the requirements for a conspiracy under s 1 CLA are fulfilled is directed to the stage when the agreement is formed, not when it is implemented.
R (Alec Jarrett Limited and Ors) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court and Ors [2025] EWHC 1674 (Admin) – Regs 4 and 30(1) WATKER - s 3(2)(g) POA. 1) the designation of the FSA as the competent authority for taking action in the event of non-compliance with WATKER did not vest the power to prosecute in the FSA.
2) reg 30(1) WATKER is offence which any person may prosecute.
- as a corporation sole, Secretary of State may initiate prosecution in same way as private individual.
- s 3(2)(g) POA allows Attorney General to assign Secretary of State’s power to prosecute to DPP (and hence CPS).
Latest Articles
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
Amending the Defendant’s Name Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.