The court quashed a finding of contempt in relation to the livestreaming on Facebook of a video referring to details of defendants during a trial which was subject to a postponement order prohibiting the reporting of the proceedings until the conclusion of the trial. The judge had dealt with the contempt too quickly, there was no clarity about the particulars of the alleged contempt as required by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 Pt 48 and there was limited opportunity to investigate mitigation. The matter was remitted for rehearing.
The Supreme Court interpreted the Representation of the People Act 1983 s.90C, under which an appropriate amount of property, goods, services or facilities transferred to or provided for the use or benefit of an election candidate free of charge or at a discount had to be declared as election expenses. There was no requirement that before such property, goods, services or facilities fell to be declared, they had to have been authorised by the candidate or his election agent, or by someone authorised by either of them.
The court interpreted the phrase “attributable to intoxication” in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.76(5), which precluded a defendant from relying on self-defence where he had formed a mistaken belief in the existence of any circumstances and that belief was attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced. Section s.76(5) was not confined to cases in which alcohol or drugs were still present in a defendant’s system; it could cover a mistaken state of mind immediately and proximately consequent upon earlier drinking or drug-taking. However, it did not extend to long-term mental illness precipitated by alcohol or drug misuse.
An employee of a planning agency which had been hired by owners of a Grade II listed building should not have been convicted of an offence of willfully obstructing a planning officer acting in the exercise of a right of entry to the building where that officer had not asserted his right of entry under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 s.88 and had been allowed to enter the building on an informal basis before the employee had ordered him to leave.
An offence could be committed under the Terrorism Act 2000 s.17(b) if, on the information known to the defendant, there was, assessed objectively, reasonable cause to suspect that money might be used for terrorism purposes.