The First-tier Tribunal’s purported grant of bail to a person in immigration detention was invalid where the bail order had erroneously referred to an “offender manager” as the person before whom the offender was to appear, rather than “immigration officer” as specified in the Immigration Act 1971 Sch.2 Pt I para.22(1A), and had failed to specify any “time and place” of recognizance. Although the invalidity of the bail order meant that the secretary of state was entitled to impose a Notice of Restriction on the person who had been released, she ought instead to have brought the matter back before the court.
Although a judge had unnecessarily and improperly intervened during a defendant’s examination-in-chief, the interventions were not so significant as to materially impair the defendant’s ability to put his case before the jury. The judge’s interventions, combined with deficiencies in his summing-up, had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
It was plain that the pension policies of a company director convicted of VAT fraud constituted “realisable property” under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 so that his appeal against their addition to a receivership order, on the ground that they had no realisable value and would continue to have none for a number of years, failed.
At a trial for conspiracy to defraud by dishonestly making a false representation, it had not been necessary for a judge to exclude under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.78 evidence of a co-accused’s guilty plea that had been admitted under s.74. Whilst the evidence raised difficulties for the defence on the issue of the genuineness of a purportedly forged will, it did not have a similar impact upon the other issues which the jury had to resolve and, overall, its introduction was not unfair.
An indictment uploaded electronically onto the Crown Court Digital Case System which was different from the indictment on which the defendants had been arraigned had been “preferred” for the purposes of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 s.2(1) and did not render the convictions a nullity. Following revision of s.2(1) by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the decision in R. v Leeks (David Edward)  EWCA Crim 1612, based on the approach taken in R. v Clarke (Ronald Augustus)  UKHL 8, no longer represented the law concerning the validity of indictments.