A member of a group under police surveillance who had entered into a sexual relationship with an undercover police officer was unable to establish that her lack of knowledge as to the officer’s true identity vitiated her consent to sexual relations within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.74. There was no justification for extending the common law position as contended for by the claimant, namely that the matter to which the deception related had to be sufficiently serious in objective terms as to be capable of being regarded as relevant to a woman’s decision-making and that, subjectively, the deception went to a matter which the woman regarded as critical or fundamental to her decision-making.
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.
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.