The Practical Lawyer

SOCA had the power to recover property derived from criminal conduct and the court had to decide, under s241, on the balance of probabilities whether it had been proved that any of the matters allegedly constituting unlawful conduct had occurred.

The judge correctly left the count of manslaughter as part of a joint enterprise as an alternative to murder for the jury to consider and there had been no material error in the judge's directions.

It is difficult to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process and a lack of explanation for delay going to the credibility of the complainant is insufficient to justify a stay. Abuse can be argued either when it is not fair for a trial to proceed, or that it is not possible for any trial to be fair.

The Crown can change its mind but relevant consultation requirements and guidance must be complied with. In a recent case, the Crown sought to go back on its agreement that it would offer no evidence against D in return for a restraining order made on acquittal. It argued unsuccessfully that such an order could not be made in the absence of evidence - the court held this to be bad in law.

A 16-year prison term following a conviction for violent disorder was an appropriate sentence for D who had previous good character. D had been part of a mob attack on a shop and had thrown a bin at a car containing members of the Royal Family following recent student demonstrations in London.

It was impossible to impose criminal liability on a company for intentionally making a false entry to an environmental control record in circumstances other than those where an intention to make a false entry can be attributed.

In a recent case, the defendants (D) were convicted of robbery, having punched their two victims and hurled abuse at them and walked off with the bicycle that had been left on the cycle path by one of the victims.

The custodial sentences imposed on rioters were appropriate and intended to provide both punishment and deterrence. In the recent appeals against sentence by a number of individuals convicted and sentenced following convictions for participating in the recent riots, the CA held that the context of the crimes committed aggravated the seriousness of the individual offences.

An explanation for logical inconsistency between the verdicts of a jury was acceptable only if it fell within the parameters of the case as summed up by the trial judge.

The sentences of recent rioters who had committed aggravated crimes had to be punished according and as a deterrent to other members of the public. Sentencing courts could not ignore the context in which the crimes had been committed and the CA dismissed a number of appeals of individuals who committed offences during the riots.