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.
A victim of trafficking was not granted exceptional leave to appeal against her conviction for smuggling drugs into the UK. Although there had been a change in the law, and her conviction and sentence constituted a substantial injustice in that they posed a risk to her immigration status, her conviction was not unsafe.
Evidence given to a court by a police officer of breath tests and their results was sufficient to prove that a person was over the limit, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.16 and a print-out of the results was not required.
Search warrants issued for the homes and business premises of directors of two companies suspected of bribing an employee of a large company in order to obtain lucrative work were quashed as they had not been sufficiently precise in describing the material sought, and in one instance had been based on an error of fact.
Material relevant to demonstrating the mindset of those convicted of encouraging support for a proscribed organisation was admissible at trial in order to allow the jury to consider the appellants’ actual views and their willingness to express violent Jihadi views to others. Since none of the material was the subject of any allegation against an appellant, its relevance had been properly explained in jury directions and the defence’s case had been properly set out, there was no possibility of improper or prejudicial use being made of the evidence.