Law Report: Case Summaries

THE following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Crime

R v Cole; CA (Crim Div) (Simon Brown LJ, Waterhouse, Harrison JJ); 14 Feb 1994.

Whilst echoing the urgent call for legislation with regard to the defence of duress recenting sounded by the court in R v Hurst, the Independent, 14 Feb 1994, it was clearly inappropriate at the present time to give duress any wider ambit than had hitherto been plainly recognised. Until all aspects of the defence had been put on to a statutory footing, duress should be rigidly confined to its established present limits.

Peter Gower (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Mark Heywood (CPS) for the Crown.

R v Guthrie; CA (Crim Div)(Russell LJ, Smith, Dyson JJ); 11 Feb 1994.

Whilst it was unconventional and probably undesirable for a judge to tell a jury at exactly what time he would be in a position to give a direction about reaching a majority verdict, the fact that the judge had done so, rather than putting pressure on the jury to reach a verdict quickly, might have alleviated any anxiety about the length of time the jury could be in retirement, and therefore did not constitute a material irregularity in the trial.

Tom McKinnon (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Kevin Leigh (CPS) for the Crown.

R v L; CA (Crim Div)(Beldam LJ, Judge, Ebsworth JJ); 11 Feb 1994.

There was no fixed rule of law or practice in either the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 or in the authorities that the proviso to s 2(1) might never be applied in a case where direction on the need for corroboration had been inadequate or incomplete.

Peter G Smith (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Derek Halbert (CPS) for the Crown.

Extradition

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Patel; QBD (DC) (Henry LJ, Mitchell J); 9 Feb 1994.

The reasons for a foreign state's delay in bringing a prosecution and the consequences of the delay were part of the circumstances that the Home Secretary was bound to have regard to in deciding whether it was just to uproot a citizen and send him to another country to face his trial. In leaving the foreign court to judge any application for a stay on grounds of abuse of process, he failed to give sufficient regard to the applicant's rights and to the protection that the extradition process was intended to afford him. The irresistible inference to be drawn from the facts was that it would be unjust and oppressive to surrender the applicant and the minister could not properly have reached any other conclusion.

Lionel Swift QC and Donald Cryan (T Cryan & Co, Harrow) for the applicant; Clare Montgomery (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary and the governor of Brixton prison; Paul Garlick (CPS) for the United States government.

Police

McLeod v Metropolitan Police Commissioners; CA (Neill, Horrmann, Waite LJJ); 3 Feb 1994.

Section 17(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 recognised the power of the police to enter private premises to prevent a breach of the peace which was not restricted to a particular type of premises. However, police should act with great care and discretion in exercising the power. They must reasonably believe a breach of the peace is likely to occur and be satisfied there is a real and imminent likelihood of it occurring. How far in advance of an apprehended breach the police may exercise their power of entry remains to be determined in a future case.

The plaintiff in person; Simon Walsh (Metropolitan Police Solicitor) for the defendant.

Practice

Practice note: administration order applicants: independent reports; ChD (Sir Donald Nicholls V-C); 17 Jan 1994.

A report provided under r 2.2 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI no 1925) to support an application for an administration order should not be unnecessarily detailed. In a normal case the court needed a concise assessment of the company's situation, including an explanation of the availability of any finance required during the administration. Disproportionate investigation and expense should be avoided.

Practice note: vibration white finger actions; QBD (Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ); 12 Jan 1994.

Interlocutory proceedings in the British Coal and Tyne Tees Contractors Vibration White Finger Litigation should be heard, where possible at the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry by Judge Stephenson. Existing and new actions should be transferred to or started in the Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry or County Court.

Privilege

R v Reeves; CA (Crim Div) (Evans LJ, Rougier, Douglas Brown JJ); 26 Jan 1994.

A blood sample provided by a defendant to his doctor in order that a scientist might, at the request of the defence solicitors, carry out DNA tests on it, was an item 'subject to legal privilege' within s 10(1)(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The defendant was therefore entitled to object to its production or to opinion evidence based on it.

Anthony Barker QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Christopher Hotten (CPS) for the Crown.

Sentencing

R v Kempley; CA (Crim Div) (Russell LJ, Smith, Dyson JJ); 14 Feb 1994.

In view of the horrific consequences which could ensue after the taking of ecstasy tablets there had to be a deterrent element in a sentence passed on a defendant found in possession of that drug with intent to supply it to others.

Amanda Pinto, who did not appear below (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.

R v Khan; CA (Crim Div) (Russell LJ, Smith, Dyson JJ); 14 Feb 1994.

Save in exceptional circumstances a youth court committing a young person for trial to the crown court should postpone passing sentence for less serious offences until after the crown court proceedings.

Sydney Levine, who did not appear below (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.