Recklessness in the offence of assault would only be proved against a defendant if the magistrate or judge was satisfied that he actually foresaw a risk by taking a certain course of action but went on to take that risk.
The deliberate taking of photographs in court, in breach of notices prohibiting such conduct, was a contempt of court as well as an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1925 s.41. A specific intent to interfere with the administration of justice was not required before such a contempt could be proven. It was sufficient that the act was deliberate and in breach of the criminal law or a court order of which the contemnor was aware.
The Court of Appeal rejected a contention that, in order for the actus reus of an offence contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1)(a) to be made out, there had to be an invitation by a defendant to others to join him in providing practical or tangible support to a proscribed organisation. On a proper interpretation of that provision, it had to be determined whether a defendant knowingly used words which in fact invited support for that organisation. That broader interpretation was not incompatible with rights under the ECHR or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
It had been appropriate for the Crown to pursue the generic charge of conspiracy to convert criminal property in relation to a drugs operation where there was substantial evidence that one of the defendants was heavily involved in supplying drugs on a wholesale basis to his co-defendants but the Crown was unable to prove the type and quantity of drugs involved.
The Court of Appeal considered appeals against findings made during hearings under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 s.4A where the appellants had been found unfit to plead. An investigation into the state of mind of the unfit person was inconsistent with an enquiry under s.4A as to whether they had done the act.