You are not currently signed in - enter your email address and password into the boxes below, or create a new account.
- R v Lunn  EWCA Crim 34 – Rule 10.2(2) CrimPR.
- duplicity – multiple incidents.
- only 3 out of 400 incidents alleged in single charge expressly proved.
1) duplicity relates to the form of the indictment.
- charging a course of conduct does not charge more than one offence.
2) use of spreadsheets (or schedules) to give details of allegations in fraud cases not objectionable.
3) where D guilty of single charge, alleging a course of conduct, sentencing considerations not confined to those incidents within the charge expressly found proved.
- R v Boateng  EWCA Crim 57 – r 10.2 (formerly 14.2) CrimPR - Immigration Act 1971 – ICA.
1) count alleging wrong subsection for offence and wrong details in particulars of offence was in breach of CrimPR and fundamentally flawed.
2) offence of breaching immigration law. - where offence provision and particulars of offence correct, and clear what being alleged, drafting error in stated provision of immigration law breached did not invalidate the count.
3) cannot be a conviction for contravening provisions before they came into force.
4) can be in possession of a false ‘identity document’ (a passport) where the document genuine but has unlawfully obtained residence stamp affixed to it.
5) no requirement to prove dishonesty where offence provision does not so provide.
- R v Boyle Transport (Northern Ireland) Ltd and Others  EWCA Crim 19 – POCA.
- lifting or piercing the corporate veil in confiscation cases.
1) limited company is a separate legal entity from its directors and shareholders.
2) when the corporate veil may be lifted - R v Seager: R v Blatch.
3) “regulatory” offences example of where P should consider, with an eye to confiscation proceedings, including the limited company as a D.
- R v Ogden and Ors  EWCA Crim 6 – S 327(1) POCA.
- money laundering – conspiracy to convert criminal property.
1) evidence of “benefit” is relevant to whether there is “criminal property” but is not necessary to prove, “conversion”.
2) if A and B agree the sale of illicit drugs, they are both guilty of conspiracy to convert or transfer criminal property.
- Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen, C-134/15, EU:C::498 - Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 – articles 15(1) and 16 CFREU – articles 39 and 40(2) TFEU.
– Poultrymeat Regulations.
1) the need to provide consumers with sufficient, unequivocal and objective information concerning products offered for sale was a proportionate interference with the freedom to conduct a business.
2) a comparison of technical rules and procedures cannot prove discrimination between dissimilar products which are subject to different rules.
- Aggressive Commercial Practices, Confidentiality Clauses, Consent Connivance and Due Diligence.
Whether a confidentiality clause could amount to an aggressive commercial practice and whether a director could connive therein by sending out such a clause in a letter drafted by a solicitor, fell to be decided in the recent case of R v Waters. First published as "Aggressive Commercial Practices" in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2016) 180 JPN 736.
- Commercial Practice and a Single Consumer
The purposive approach to the interpretation of the Europe spawned CPUTR need not suffer from an inability to apply the Interpretation Act 1978. First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2016) 180 JPN 310.
- Computing Time and Date - When the Courts Can’t Count
Knowing how to calculate when a statutory time limit expires can be crucial yet, even when the courts purport to apply the correct rule, Victor Smith has found they do not always get it right.
First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2015) 179 JPN 796.
- Food Label Can Mislead Despite Accurate Ingredients List
Producers who previously thought an accurate ingredients list would allow them to make misleading marketing claims elsewhere on a food label must now think again as a result of Teekanne's effect on the fifteen year reign of Darbo. First published as "Misleading Labelling Offences" in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2015) 179 JPN 604.
- Continuing Offences
The question of whether a particular offence is a continuing one was raised by the Court of Appeal in R v Moss  EWCA Crim 713, but was left undecided. Victor Smith contemplates the answer. First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2015) 179 JPN 472.