Oxford University Press
  OUP Worldwide
Search:
Advanced Search
Printer-Friendly View

Companion Website

Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2012

August 2012 Update

August Update 2012

Updates to Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2012 are produced by Michael Hirst, Professor of Criminal Justice, Leicester De Montfort Law School, and Laurence Eastham, Editorial Co-ordinator, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice. This update primarily considers developments reported in July 2012.


Part A General Principles of Criminal Law

A4 Parties to Offences

A4.1 Liability of Principals and Accessories Generally

Where it is alleged that each defendant committed an offence, as well as encouraging the others (as in a case of alleged gang rape where each is accused of penetrating the complainant), joint enterprise need be proved only where there may be doubt as to precisely what acts a particular defendant committed. If, therefore, an indictment contains counts alleging both individual acts of rape and counts based on joint enterprise, it may be preferable in the interests of simplicity for the jury to be asked first for their verdicts on the individual counts. Only if they cannot be sure on these will it then be necessary to seek verdicts on the basis of joint enterprise. See Mickevicius [2012] EWCA Crim 1477.

A5 Inchoate Offences

A5.41 Conspiracy: Agreement Without Real Intent

Where an apparent agreement to commit an offence is nothing more than fantasy, in that none of the parties seriously intend to put it into execution, the position is clear: a shared fantasy is not a conspiracy; and if the prosecution evidence is so equivocal that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could be sure the agreement was anything more than mere fantasy, there can be no case to answer. There must in other words, be some credible evidence of ‘executory intent’. See Goddard [2012] EWCA Crim 1756.


Part B Offences

B10 Terrorism, Piracy and Hijacking

B10.9 Counter-terrorism Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000: Detention

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 9) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1810) brings s. 117(1) to (3) of the Act into force on 7 August 2012. Section 117(1) to (3) amends the provisions for review of detention of persons under the Terrorism Act 2000, s. 41.

B10.11 Detained Persons Rights

The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1966) brings s. 27 of the Act (meaning of ‘terrorism offence’) into force on 26 July 2012. Section 27 is fundamental to the provisions dealing with post-charge questioning and recording of interviews (ss. 22, 23 and 25 of the 2008 Act) brought into force by SI 2012 No. 1724.

B10.17 Stop and Search Power

The Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1794) brings the new codes of practice relating to the exercise of the stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, ss. 43 and 43A into force on 10 July 2012. There are separate codes for (i) England, Wales and Scotland and (ii) Northern Ireland.

B10.26 Membership of a Proscribed Organisation: Elements

The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1771) adds the Indian Mujahideen to the list of proscribed organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000, sch. 2 with effect from 6 July 2012.

B12 Offences Relating to Weapons

B12.7 Lethal Barrelled Weapon

Freeman [1970] 2 All ER 413 and Cafferata v Wilson [1936] 3 All ER 149 were disapproved in Bewley [2012] EWCA Crim 1457. No conclusion can be reached as to whether an imitation firearm is or was readily convertible without proper consideration of the Firearms Act 1982, s. 1(6) and, if it was raised, the defence in s. 1(5). Moreover, there is no warrant for including within the definition in the Firearms Act 1968, s. 57(1) an item which could only discharge a missile in combination with other tools extraneous to that item. The opening words of s. 57(1) refer to the capacity of a particular item and not its capacity in combination with other pieces of equipment. So an old and damaged starting pistol with a partially drilled barrel could not be regarded as a prohibited firearm merely because it could be made to discharge a pellet with the aid of a vice or clamp, a mallet and metal punch; and if the pistol did not fall within the definition of firearm in s. 57(1), no part of it could do so.

B12.116 Sentencing Guidelines for Firearms Offences

Rehman [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 77 was considered in Welsh [2012] EWCA Crim 1331 where D had deliberately retained his large collection of weapons when changes to the law made that illegal. Concurrent sentences of the minimum five years were upheld. The fact that D was a collector who had no intention of using his firearms for criminal purposes, could not, in itself, be an exceptional circumstance such as to justify anything less than the five-year minimum term (see also AG’s Ref No. 23 of 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 1683).

B13 Offences Affecting Enjoyment of Premises

B13.74 Trespass on a Protected Site: Elements

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1769) adds part of Kensington Palace to the list of sites covered by the principal Order of 2007 (SI 2007 No. 930) with effect from 1 October 2012.

B14 Offences Against the Administration of Justice

B14.104 Substantial Risk of Prejudice

In A-G v Associated Newspapers [2012] EWHC 2029 (Admin) an avalanche of material highlighting the depravity of the recently convicted serial child murderer, Levi Bellfield, appeared in the defendant newspapers while the jury was still considering a further charge against him. This included material that had been ruled inadmissible at the trial. The jury was at once discharged and the publications were later found to have created substantial risk of prejudice within the scope of s. 2(2) even though the jury already knew many terrible things about Bellfield’s character and had already convicted him of kidnapping and child murder.

B19 Offences Related to Drugs

B19.10 Controlled Drugs: Extracts from the 2001 Regulations, as amended

The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1916) consolidate most UK legislation concerning medicinal products for human use as regards inter alia manufacturing and wholesale dealing, authorisation and certification, dealing, advertising, safety and enforcement. They include consequential amendments to a wide range of legislation including the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3998).


Part C Road Traffic Offences

C5 Drink-driving Offences

C5.29 Admissibility of Specimens

As to the provision of specimens of urine from a patient using a catheter, see Ryder v CPS [2011] EWHC 4003 (Admin).


Part D Procedure

D1 Powers of Investigation

D1.1 Police Powers in the Investigation of Crime

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1798) brings revised PACE Codes C, G and H into force. Revised Codes C and H apply from 10 July 2012. Revised Code G applies from 12 November 2012.

D1.13 Arrest Without Warrant

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1798) brings revised PACE Codes C, G and H into force. Revised Code G applies from 12 November 2012.

D1.26 Detention and Treatment of Suspects

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1798) brings revised PACE Codes C, G and H into force. Revised Code C applies from 10 July 2012.

D1.31 The Decision to Detain

The PACE 1984, s. 37(2) was considered by the Privy Council in Ramsingh v A-G of Trinidad & Tobago [2012] UKPC 16. It did not apply directly in that case because the PACE 1984 does not apply in Trinidad and Tobago, but was said to reflect the correct approach at common law.

D1.52 Interrogation of Suspects

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1798) brings revised PACE Codes C, G and H into force. Revised Code C applies from 10 July 2012.

D7 Bail

D7.36 Conditions of Bail: Taking the Surety

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D7.44 Conditions of Bail: Application to Vary Conditions of Bail

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D7.52 Stating and Recording Decisions about Bail: Duty to Make a Record of the Decision

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D7.60 Procedure for Bail Applications in the Crown Court

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D7.67 Prosecution Applications Relating to Bail: Procedure

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D7.87 Consequences for Sureties when Accused Absconds

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules about bail applications and appeals in Part 19.

D10 Sending Cases from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court

D10.48 Committal for Summary Offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s. 41

In X [2012] EWCA Crim 1610 the Court of Appeal considered a practice that has recently developed independently of s. 41. Walker J said:

There appears to have developed a practice under which the magistrates' courts adjourn summary-only matters, knowing the offender is due to appear at a Crown Court on other matters, and invite the Crown Court to enable the summary cases to be dealt with at the same time by the expedient of arranging for a circuit judge to sit as a district judge. Such a practice has advantages, but there are dangers. Therefore before this practice is followed, the magistrates' court must carefully consider whether this is in the interests of justice and ensure that there is power to do so. A Crown Court judge who is invited to deal with two sets of proceedings in this way must decide whether it is appropriate in the light of submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. For this purpose it must be kept firmly in mind that when sentencing as a district judge the sentence is imposed by the magistrates' court, and consideration must be given not only to advantages but also to dangers that may arise because (1) the judge would, as regards the magistrates' court matters, be limited to the powers of a magistrates' court, powers which must be carefully checked by counsel and the court; and (2) sentences that the judge imposes when sitting as a magistrates' court would have a different route of appeal from that applicable to sentences imposed by the judge when sitting in the Crown Court. If the invitation is accepted, then consideration must again be given to these dangers at the stage of deciding what sentence should be imposed by the judge when sitting as a magistrates' court.

D12 Arraignment and Pleas

D12.41 Retrial Provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

The Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology or Numbering) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1809) makes numerous amendments to legislation, making minor changes to terminology and references to Treaty article numbers. In particular, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s. 76 is amended so as to update the references to the Articles of the Treaty on European Union.

D24 Trial of Juveniles

D24.18 Determining Mode of Trial of Juveniles: Trial on Indictment

The MCA 1980, s. 24(1A) was considered in X [2012] EWCA Crim 1610. See also D10.48 in this update.

D26 Appeal to the Court of Appeal

D26.33 Partially Successful Appeal: Substituting Verdict

In Abdul [2012] EWCA Crim 1788, the Court of Appeal once again confirmed that the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s. 3, cannot be used to substitute a verdict of guilty of an offence for which the defendant could have been convicted if the offence of which he was in fact convicted does not exist, or no longer exists.

D28 Reference to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

D28.3 Reference for Review of Sentence

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1833) amends the principal Order of 2006 (SI 2006 No. 1116), with effect from 6 August 2012, so as to add the following to the list of cases to which the CJA 1988, Part IV (references to the Court of Appeal by the A-G on lenient sentences) applies:

  • cases tried on indictment following the giving of a notice by a designated authority under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 51B (notices in serious or complex fraud cases);
  • cases concerning offences involving trafficking people for exploitation under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, s. 4.
The amendments also substitute para. 4 of sch. 1 to the 2006 Order so as to extend it to include the offences of encouraging or assisting under the Serious Crime Act 2007, s. 44 or 45.

D29 Challenging Decisions of Magistrates’ Courts

D29.14 Appeal to Divisional Court by Way of Case Stated

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726) replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules replace completely the existing rules in Part 64 about the statement of a case by a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court for the purposes of an appeal to the High Court.

D31 Public Funding and Costs

D31.31 Statutes and Regulations Relating to Costs

The Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1804) further amend the principal Regulations of 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1335) with effect from 1 October 2012. Inter alia, the amendments insert a new reg. 4A, which applies where the court fixes an amount to be paid out of central funds to a successful defendant or appellant in accordance with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s. 16(6C) or the Extradition Act 2003, ss. 62A(4) or 135A(4); reg. 4A provides that the court in such cases must, in relation to any amounts payable in respect of legal costs, calculate such amounts in accordance with the rates or scales or other provision made by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the calculation of amounts payable out of central funds, whether or not that results in the fixing of an amount that the court considers reasonably sufficient or necessary to compensate the accused. Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations is substituted. The new reg. 7(6) applies to legal proceedings where not all individuals are eligible for legal aid and provides that in such proceedings, if the amount of an award out of central funds is not fixed by the court, any amount payable in respect of legal costs must be calculated in accordance with rates or scales or other provision made by the Lord Chancellor, whether or not that results in the fixing of an amount that the appropriate authority considers reasonably sufficient or necessary to compensate the person.

D32 Extradition

In Stopyra v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2012] EWHC 1787 (Admin) the Divisional Court held, per curiam, as follows:

It is clear that the present system for means testing [for legal aid applications in extradition cases] produces unacceptable delays that are unjust. The system is in effect unworkable in practice within the time limits set out in the 2003 Act and the Framework Decision and is inconsistent with overarching principles of fairness and justice in timely decision-making in extradition cases. The system has the effect of putting the courts, as the executing judicial authority and the branch of the state responsible for discharging the obligations under Article 17, in breach of those obligations...In short, the current system needs urgent revision to eliminate delays. The UK must put in place a legal aid system for EAWs which ensures that requested persons have speedy access to legal representation, i.e. within a timeframe which is (a) compatible with ensuring compliance with the time limits laid down in the Framework Decision in Articles 11 and 17 and (b) consonant with the principles of justice. If steps are not urgently taken by the Ministry, then no doubt there will be further appeals or applications for judicial review to this court and the United Kingdom will remain in breach of its treaty obligations. (see [38], [44]-[45] of the judgment).


Part E Sentencing

E19 Confiscation Orders

E19.26 Tainted Gifts

The concept of a tainted gift was considered in HM Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Johnson [2012] EWCA Civ 1000.

E21 Exclusions and Disqualifications

E21.10 Disqualification from Driving where Motor Vehicle Used for Committing or Facilitating Commission of an Offence

Bowling [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 122 was considered and explained in Harkins [2011] EWCA Crim 2227. The Court of Appeal in Harkins observed (inter alia) that, if such disqualification is to be effective at all, it is implicit that it must still apply after release from custody and normally that will be a proportionate result provided it does not seriously impair rehabilitation, for example, because the offender has work to go to and for which he needs to drive, such that that important element in rehabilitation would be thwarted by the period of disqualification.

E21.13 Sexual Offences Prevention Orders

R (Chief Constable of Cleveland Police) v Haggas [2010] 3 All ER 506 and Hoath [2011] 4 All ER 306 were applied in Aldridge [2012] EWCA Crim 1456. It was settled law, said the Court of Appeal, that the Court was the appropriate forum to consider an appeal arising from an application to vary a SOPO, but an unlawfully imposed SOPO could not be varied once the power to make alterations under the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000, s. 155, had elapsed.

E21.13 Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (2)

Smith [2011] EWCA Crim 1772 was considered in Instone [2012] EWCA Crim 1792, where Lord Judge CJ warned that the fresh guidance issued in Smith did not provide grounds for a successful appeal against a SOPO imposed previously to that case. Sentences were imposed on the basis of legislation, principles of practice and guidance which were current at the time. The Court of Appeal was not a review body for every SOPO made before Smith.

E21.15 Travel Restriction Orders: Drug Trafficking Offenders

In Cruikshank [2012] EWCA Crim 1519 the appellant arrived at Heathrow Airport on a flight from St. Lucia. In his baggage was found nearly six kilos of cocaine, concealed in other items such as shampoo bottles. In addition to a term of nine years and four months' imprisonment, a Travel Restriction Order was made under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s. 33, for five years after release from the custodial part of that sentence. This was held to be reasonable even though he had parents and a 16-year-old son in Jamaica. He had a family in the UK as well. Mitting J said:

Plainly the effect of a Travel Restriction Order will be to prevent him from visiting his parents in Jamaica and his son on his release from prison. However, the frequency of his travel to and from the Caribbean and the nature of the offence of which he was convicted, demonstrates in our view that the judge was clearly right to impose a travel restriction order. In those circumstances, its length, five years, cannot be considered in the least excessive.

E23 Notification Requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003

E23.3 Notification Period

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1883) amends the SOA 2003 so as to remedy an incompatibility with the ECHR arising from the indefinite notification requirements contained in s. 82(1). In R (F (A Child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 AC 331 the Supreme Court held that the indefinite notification requirement was disproportionate and infringed the ECHR, Article 8.


Part F Evidence

F4 Competence and Compellability of Witnesses

F4.14 The Spouse or Civil Partner of the Accused: as a Witness for the Prosecution

In BA [2012] EWCA Crim 1529, the Court of Appeal considered the previously unresolved question posed in this paragraph of Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, namely, whether a ‘specified offence’ for the purposes of the PACE 1984, s. 80(2A), must as a matter of legal definition require an assault, injury or a threat of injury or whether it suffices that such an offence did involve, or is alleged to have involved, such an assault, injury or threat, etc.

Having considered Lee [1996] 2 Cr App R 266 and McAndrew-Bingham [1999] 2 Cr App R 293, the Court accepted that assault, threat of injury, etc. need not be formal constituent elements of the offence, but at the same time it rejected the argument that any offence might fall within s. 80(2A) if there is evidence that some injury, etc. resulted from it. The offence charged must be one that itself encompasses the real possibility of an assault or injury or threat of injury.

The Court also noted some of the many anomalies thrown up by this provision, but remarked that it was for Parliament to resolve them.

F6 Examination in Chief

F6.9 Leading Questions

In Turner [2012] EWCA Crim 1786 the trial judge had been faced with the problem of a witness in a sex case who appeared to have great difficulty overcoming her embarrassment in court. She could remember the facts well enough, but counsel had great difficulty in getting her to describe facts relating to sexual acts or behaviour that were not in issue (the real issue in respect of most of the counts was her age at the relevant time).

In those circumstances it was held that the judge had acted rightly in allowing the witness’s statement to be read to her in court before inviting her to adopt its contents if she thought they were correct. The Court of Appeal observed:

He could have permitted leading questions to be put to the witness in any event on matters which were undisputed. It was by far better that the statement should be used for this purpose and the witness invited to adopt it or to reject it. The judge could have permitted the statement to be admitted under section 114 of the 2003 Act. That would have enabled the prosecution to rely on the statement in its entirety. The procedure that he adopted protected the appellant better than either of the two alternative courses. It was a sensible adaptation of the processes of the court which caused not the slightest prejudice to the appellant or the conduct of the defence. Indeed, it reduced the risk of any unfair prejudice to him

F16 Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

F16.1 Hearsay Exceptions

Horncastle was considered in Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509, in which the Court of Appeal warned that it does not lay down any general rule that hearsay evidence must be shown to be reliable before it can be admitted. The Court instead suggested that the statutory framework provided for hearsay evidence can usefully be considered in six successive steps:

i) Is there a specific statutory justification (or 'gateway') permitting the admission of hearsay evidence (s. 116-118)?
ii) What material is there which can help to test or assess the hearsay (s. 124)?
iii) Is there a specific 'interests of justice' test at the admissibility stage?
iv) If there is no other justification or gateway, should the evidence nevertheless be considered for admission on the grounds that admission is, despite the difficulties, in the interests of justice (s. 114(1)(d))?
v) Even if prima facie admissible, ought the evidence to be ruled inadmissible [sic] (s. 78 PACE and/or s. 126 CJA)?
vi) If the evidence is admitted, then should the case subsequently be stopped under s. 125?
The Court then added:
Although there is no rule to the effect that where the hearsay evidence is the ‘sole or decisive’ evidence in the case it can never be admitted, the importance of the evidence to the case against the accused is central to these various decisions.

F16.7 Criminal Justice Act 2003: Unavailable Witnesses

The CJA 2003, s. 116(5) (absence of witness caused by defendant in support of whose case it is sought to give the statement in evidence) has not often featured in reported cases, but was considered at some length in Rowley [2012] EWCA Crim 1434. Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Moore-Bick LJ said:

In our view it is sufficient for the purposes of subsection (5) that the action of the party seeking to adduce the hearsay evidence should have been an effective cause, albeit not the only cause, of the witness's absence, since to hold otherwise would significantly undermine the policy of the legislation.
He then added:
Although the reference to ‘the proceedings’ in subsection (5) must refer to the proceedings in which it is sought to adduce the evidence, we see no reason to interpret the subsection as limited to steps taken after the commencement of the proceedings. If, as we think, the purpose of the provision is to prevent the person who is responsible for the absence of the witness from adducing his evidence in the form of hearsay, it is of no relevance whether the proceedings had or had not been started at the time when the relevant acts were performed. The only question of importance is whether the acts were done in order to prevent the attendance of the witness at the proceedings.

F16.21 Discretionary Exclusion of Statements Admissible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss. 116 and 117

Horncastle [2010] 2 AC 373 and Ibrahim [2012] EWCA Crim 837 were explained in Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509.

F16.57 Unconvincing and Superfluous Hearsay

In Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509 the Court of Appeal described the CJA 2003, s. 125, as a ‘critical part of the apparatus provided by the CJA 2003 for the management of hearsay evidence’ and emphasised that there are fundamental differences between the judge’s powers or duties under s. 125 and the general power to stop a case on a submission of no case to answer as explained in Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.

A passing observation to the contrary in Joyce [2005] EWCA Crim 1785, was dismissed on the basis that the issue did not really arise in that case.

F18 Identification Evidence

F18.18 Voice Identification

There is no doubt that the Turnbull guidelines are applicable in principle to identification by voice recognition, although it may not be necessary to include any specific warning about previous miscarriages of justice (Phipps v DPP (Jamaica) [2012] UKPC 24).


New Legislation

Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1726)

These Rules replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011, as amended. They have effect from 1 October 2012. The new Rules:

(a) replace completely the existing rules about-

  • bail applications and appeals (Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules)
  • the statement of a case by a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court for the purposes of an appeal to the High Court (Part 64);
(b) make changes to the rules about-
  • the service of documents in criminal cases (Part 4)
  • applications for investigation orders (Part 6)
  • sending a defendant for trial in the Crown Court (Part 9)
  • reporting restrictions (Part 16)
  • written witness statements (Part 27)
  • giving advance notice of hearsay evidence (Part 34)
  • introducing oral and written evidence at trial in magistrates’ courts (Part 37)
  • giving notice of the requirements of suspended sentence orders, and about giving notice to those affected by a community order requirement (Part 42);
(c) include up to date references to other legislation, and amendments made in consequence of the changes listed above.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1769)

This Order adds part of Kensington Palace to the list of sites covered by the principal Order of 2007 (SI 2007 No. 930) with effect from 1 October 2012.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1771)

This Order adds the ‘Indian Mujahideen’ to the list of proscribed organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000, sch. 2 with effect from 6 July 2012.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1792)

This Order brought the relevant code of practice into operation on 10 July 2012.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Code of Practice for the Video Recording with Sound Post-Charge Questioning) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1793)

This Order brought the relevant code of practice into operation on 10 July 2012.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1794)

This Order brings the new codes of practice relating to the exercise of the stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, ss. 43 and 43A into force on 10 July 2012. There are separate codes for (i) England, Wales and Scotland and (ii) Northern Ireland.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1798)

This Order brings revised PACE Codes C, G and H into force. Revised Codes C and H apply from 10 July 2012. Revised Code G applies from 12 November 2012.

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1804)

These Regulations further amend the principal Regulations of 1986 (SI 1986 No. 1335) with effect from 1 October 2012. Inter alia, the amendments insert a new reg. 4A, which applies where the court fixes an amount to be paid out of central funds to a successful defendant or appellant in accordance with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s. 16(6C) or the Extradition Act 2003, ss. 62A(4) or 135A(4); reg. 4A provides that the court in such cases must, in relation to any amounts payable in respect of legal costs, calculate such amounts in accordance with the rates or scales or other provision made by the Lord Chancellor in relation to the calculation of amounts payable out of central funds, whether or not that results in the fixing of an amount that the court considers reasonably sufficient or necessary to compensate the accused. Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations is substituted. The new reg. 7(6) applies to legal proceedings where not all individuals are eligible for legal aid and provides that in such proceedings, if the amount of an award out of central funds is not fixed by the court, any amount payable in respect of legal costs must be calculated in accordance with rates or scales or other provision made by the Lord Chancellor, whether or not that results in the fixing of an amount that the appropriate authority considers reasonably sufficient or necessary to compensate the person.

Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology or Numbering) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1809)

This Order makes numerous amendments to legislation, including some relevant to criminal law. It makes minor changes to terminology and references to Treaty article numbers. It has effect from 1 August 2012.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 9) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1810)

This Order brings s. 117(1) to (3) of the Act (detention of persons under the Terrorism Act 2000, s. 41) into force on 7 August 2012.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1833)

This Order amends the principal Order of 2006 (SI 2006 No. 1116), with effect from 6 August 2012, so as to add the following to the list of cases to which the CJA 1988, Part IV (references to the Court of Appeal by the A-G on lenient sentences) applies:

  • cases tried on indictment following the giving of a notice by a designated authority under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s. 51B (notices in serious or complex fraud cases);
  • cases concerning offences involving trafficking people for exploitation under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, s. 4.
This Order also substitutes para. 4 of sch. 1 to the 2006 Order so as to extend it to include the offences of encouraging or assisting under the Serious Crime Act 2007, s. 44 or 45.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1876)

These Regulations impose new requirements for relevant offenders (i.e. those convicted of certain sex offences) and amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 1220).

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1883)

This Order amends the SOA 2003 so as to remedy an incompatibility with the ECHR arising from the indefinite notification requirements contained in s. 82(1). In R (F (A Child) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 AC 331 the Supreme Court held that the indefinite notification requirement was disproportionate and infringed the ECHR, Article 8.

Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1916)

These Regulations consolidate most UK legislation concerning medicinal products for human use as regards inter alia manufacturing and wholesale dealing, authorisation and certification, dealing, advertising, safety and enforcement. They include consequential amendments to a wide range of legislation including the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3998).

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 7) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1966)

This Order brings s. 27 of the Act (meaning of ‘terrorism offence’) into force on 26 July 2012.

^ Return to the top

About this book
Price, bibliographic details, and more information on the book