CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin)

A decision by Thames Valley Police that there was insufficient evidence to justify action against a local authority for fraud, forgery, copyright infringement, perjury and perverting the course of justice was not flawed. The police had carried out a proper and independent investigation into allegations that the local authority had created an inaccurate plan to support enforcement action and that it had been dishonest as to how the plan came about.

[2018] EWCA Civ 2092 [2018] EWCA Civ 2092

Directive 2012/29 art.11 did not confer on victims of crime a general right to review decisions not to prosecute. It was lawful for the CPS to have a policy of not reviewing decisions where charges were brought against some, but not all, possible suspects.

[2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin)

A final offer made by the Legal Aid Agency in respect of counsel’s fees in a “Very High Cost (Crime) Case” had a sufficient public-law element to make it amenable to judicial review. The offer in the instant case was unlawful because, among other things, the Legal Aid Agency had failed to disclose its method of calculating the fees offered.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1929 [2018] EWCA Crim 1929

To establish “possession” for the purposes of the offences of possessing indecent images of children or extreme pornographic images, the prosecution had to establish (a) that the images were within the accused’s custody or control so that he was capable of accessing them, and (b) that he had known that he possessed images. Where unsolicited images were sent to the accused by the messaging application “WhatsApp” and automatically downloaded to his phone’s memory, it was highly likely that (a) would be made out; whether (b) was made out would depend on whether he knew he had received images.

[2018] EWCA Crim 1856 [2018] EWCA Crim 1856

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.