R (on the application of S) v CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (2015)

A decision to prosecute a 12-year-old boy for rape of a child under 13 had been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service following extensive consideration of its impact on the defendant. There was no basis for saying that its decision was incompatible with his right to respect for his private life under ECHR art.8.

Read More

R (on the application of NE) (Claimant) v BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES’ COURT (Defendant) & CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS (Interested Party) : R (on the application of NM) (Claimant) v BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES COURT (Defendant) & CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS (Interested Party) (2015)

A person subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 who wished to challenge a decision of a magistrates’ court to uphold a refusal to review the notification requirements should bring an appeal by way of case stated rather than pursue an application for judicial review.

Read More

R (on the application of P) v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THAMES VALLEY (2014)

The inclusion of certain information on an individual’s enhanced criminal record certificate about an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault constituted a disproportionate interference with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 where that information had an arguably unreliable basis and effectively ended the individual’s prospects of obtaining work in the caring […]

Read More

R (on the application of MINTER) (Appellant) v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HAMPSHIRE (Respondent) & SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Interested Party) (2013)

The whole of the term of an extended sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.85 constituted the term for which a person was “sentenced to imprisonment” for the purposes of determining the notification period under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82(1). There was nothing arbitrary or disproportionate about the imposition of […]

Read More

R v DM (2011)

Where a defendant had taken indecent photographs of a 17-year-old girl following intercourse on a “one night stand”, the judge had been correct to reject an argument that the situation came within the terms of the defence set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1A.

Read More

R v B (2010)

Possible confusion caused by conflicting good and bad character directions to the jury was sufficient to make an appellant’s conviction for attempting to abduct a child unsafe.

Read More