User Name: NATHAN A/L THARMALINGAM
Date and Time: Friday, 19 July 2024 9:49:00PM MYT
Job Number: 229233940
Documents (2)
1. Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
Client/Matter: -None-
[2020] EWCA Crim 575:
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
UK Cases -None-
2. Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685_Attachment1
Client/Matter: -None-
[2020] EWCA Crim 575:
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
UK Cases -None-
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
NATHAN A/L THARMALINGAM
, R v Barton and another
Overview | [2020] EWCA Crim 575, | [2021] QB 685, | [2020] 4 All ER 742, | [2020] All ER (D) 173
(Apr)
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685
[2020] EWCA Crim 575 conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of
reasonable and honest people and that in laying down
Court of Appeal such a requirement some 35 years previously the Court
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Dame Victoria Sharp P, of Appeal had taken a wrong turn. The defendants were
Fulford LJ, McGowan, Cavanagh JJ convicted. The defendants appealed against conviction,
contending: (i) that the judge should have applied the
2020 Jan 20, 21; April 29 test for dishonesty established by the Court of Appeal,
which remained binding; and (ii) that the judge had
Judicial precedent — Court of Appeal decision — erred in his approach to the offence of conspiracy to
Conflict of authority — Obiter dictum of Supreme defraud, which in any event was insufficiently precise to
Court disapproving long-standing test for meet the requirements of legal certainty at common law
dishonesty in criminal cases established by or under article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of
decision of Court of Appeal — Whether obiter Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms1.
dictum of Supreme Court effectively overruling
earlier Court of Appeal decision
1 Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 7(1): “No one shall
Crime — Conspiracy — Conspiracy to defraud — be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or
Defendants exploiting wealthy residents of luxury omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under
nursing home to profit from them — Whether national or international law at the time when it was
defendants acting dishonestly — Whether committed.”
dishonesty requiring defendant to appreciate
conduct dishonest by ordinary standards — On the appeals—
Whether offence requiring unlawful or aggravating
conduct over and above dishonest agreement Held, dismissing the appeals, (1) that where the
containing element of unlawfulness — Whether Supreme Court directed that an otherwise binding
offence sufficiently precise — Human Rights Act decision of the Court of Appeal should no longer be
1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 7 followed and proposed an alternative test that it said
had to be adopted, the Court of Appeal was bound to
The first defendant owned and operated a luxury follow what amounted to a direction from the
nursery home of which the second defendant was Supreme Court, even where that part of the Supreme
employed as general manager. The defendants were Court's decision was strictly obiter; that such limited
charged with a number of offences which included modification to the ordinary rules of precedent was
dishonesty as one of their elements, namely theft, confined to cases in which all the Justices in the
conspiracy to defraud, fraud and false accounting. The appeal in question in the Supreme Court had agreed
Crown's case was that over many years the first that to be the effect of their decision, so that the result
defendant had dishonestly exploited his relationship with was considered by the Supreme Court to be
wealthy and vulnerable residents of the home in order to definitive, with the consequence that any further
profit from them and that he had been assisted in his appeal would be a foregone conclusion; that,
criminal behaviour by the second defendant. At trial, therefore, the test for dishonesty in criminal
when dealing with how the jury were to approach the proceedings was the
question of dishonesty, the trial judge directed them in
[*686]
accordance with the test proposed in an obiter dictum of
the Supreme Court, which had unanimously determined test laid down by the Supreme Court in its obiter
that in a case of dishonesty the Crown was not required dictum, rather than the test previously established by
to prove that the defendant had appreciated that his the Court of Appeal; that, accordingly, when
NATHAN A/L THARMALINGAM
, Page 2 of 38
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
dishonesty was in question in criminal proceedings the court:
the jury would have to ascertain (i) what was the
Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC
defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to
23; [2005] 2 AC 580; [2005] 3 WLR 29; [2005] 3 All
the facts and (ii) whether, in the light of the
ER 371; [2005] 2 Cr App R 36, PC
defendant's state of knowledge or belief as to the
facts, his conduct was dishonest by the standards of Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust
ordinary decent people; and that, in the present case, International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37; [2006] 1 WLR
the judge had properly directed the jury in 1476; [2006] 1 All ER 333, PC
accordance with that test (post, paras 1, 84, 104–108,
Director of Public Prosecutions v Patterson [2017]
114–116).
EWHC 2820 (Admin); [2018] 1 Cr App R 28, DC
Dicta of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as
(UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords Club) [2018] AC 391, Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391;
para 74, SC(E) followed. [2017] 3 WLR 1212; [2018] 2 All ER 406; [2018] 1 Cr
R v James [2006] QB 588, CA applied. App R 12, SC(E)
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, CA not followed. R v Cooke [1986] AC 909; [1986] 3 WLR 327; [1986]
2 All ER 985; 83 Cr App R 339, HL(E)
(2) That on a charge of conspiracy to defraud, the
Crown was required to prove that there had been a R v Evans (Eric) [2014] 1 WLR 2817
dishonest agreement which included unlawfulness, R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; [1982] 3 WLR 110;
either as to the object of the agreement or the means [1982] 2 All ER 689; 75 Cr App R 154, CA
by which it was to be carried out, which injured, or
had the potential to injure, a proprietary right or R v Goldshield Group plc [2008] UKHL 17; [2009] 1
interest of the victim; that although the offence would WLR 458; [2009] 2 All ER 737; [2009] 1 Cr App R 33,
not be committed in circumstances where there had HL(E)
been an agreement to achieve a lawful object by R v Gould [1968] 2 QB 65; [1968] 2 WLR 643; [1968]
lawful means, there was no requirement for any 1 All ER 849; 52 Cr App R 152, CA
additional unlawfulness or aggravating feature over
and above a dishonest agreement which included an R v H [2015] EWCA Crim 46, CA
element of unlawfulness, nor did the agreement [*687]
necessarily have to include the commission of a
substantive offence if carried out; that it followed that R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824; [2005] 1 WLR
the offence was sufficiently precise so as not to fall 3169; [2005] 2 Cr App R 21, CA
foul of article 7 of the Human Rights Convention; that R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241; [2000] 3 WLR 1590;
in the present case, the necessary element of [2000] 4 All ER 833; [2001] 1 Cr App R 18, HL(E)
unlawfulness was the positive and extensive deceit
R v James [2006] EWCA Crim 14; [2006] QB 588;
practised on the victims and others with the intention
[2006] 2 WLR 887; [2006] 1 All ER 759; [2006] 1 Cr
of prejudicing a proprietary right or interest by
App R 29, CA
obtaining property to which the defendants were not
entitled; that the offence had been properly described R v Scott [1975] AC 819; [1974] 3 WLR 741; [1974] 3
in the indictment, revealing in each instance an All ER 1032; 60 Cr App R 124, HL(E)
offence on which the jury were entitled to convict
R v Simpson [2003] EWCA Crim 1499; [2004] QB
such that the defendants would have been able
118; [2003] 3 WLR 337; [2003] 3 All ER 531; [2003] 2
readily to identify the case against them; that,
Cr App R 36, CA
furthermore, the judge had properly directed the jury
as to the elements of the offence requiring proof by R v Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146; [2000] 3 WLR
the Crown; and that, in all those circumstances, the 654; [2000] 4 All ER 289; [2001] 1 Cr App R 5, HL(E)
convictions were safe (post, paras 119–126, 155, 162).
R v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368; [1950] 2 All ER 170; 34
R v Scott [1975] AC 819, HL(E) applied. Cr App R 138, CCA
Dicta of Hickinbottom J in R v Evans (Eric) [2014] 1 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC
WLR 2817, para 38 approved. 378; [1995] 3 WLR 64; [1995] 3 All ER 97, PC
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of The following additional cases were cited in
, Page 3 of 38
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
argument:
R v Magro [2010] EWCA Crim 1575; [2011] QB 398;
Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492; [2010] 3 WLR 1694; [2011] 2 All ER 935; [2010] 2 Cr
[2007] Bus LR 220; [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 827, CA App R 25, CA
B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 R v Mazo (Ellen) [1997] 2 Cr App R 518, CA
AC 428; [2000] 2 WLR 452; [2000] 1 All ER 833;
[*688]
[2000] 2 Cr App R 65, HL(E)
R v Merriman [1973] AC 584; [1972] 3 WLR 545;
Boggeln v Williams [1978] 1 WLR 873; [1978] 2 All
[1972] 3 All ER 42; 56 Cr App R 766, HL(E)
ER 1061; 67 Cr App R 50, DC
R v Morgan [1976] AC 182; [1975] 2 WLR 913; [1975]
General Medical Council v Raychaudhuri
2 All ER 347; 61 Cr App R 136, HL(E)
(Professional Standards Authority for Health and
Social Care intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 2027; R v Morhall [1996] AC 90; [1995] 3 WLR 330; [1995]
[2019] 1 WLR 324, CA 3 All ER 659; [1995] 2 Cr App R 502, HL(E)
London and Globe Finance Corpn Ltd, In re [1903] 1 R v Morris (David) [1984] AC 320; [1983] 3 WLR 697;
Ch 728 [1983] 3 All ER 288; 77 Cr App R 309, HL(E)
Norris v Government of the United States of America R v Simpson [2003] EWCA Crim 1499; [2004] QB
(Goldshield Group plc intervening) [2007] EWHC 71 118; [2003] 3 WLR 337; [2003] 3 All ER 531; [2003] 2
(Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 1730; [2007] 2 All ER 29, DC Cr App R 36, CA
Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; [1992] 3 WLR 1032; R v Williams (Hywell Rhys) [1953] 1 QB 660; [1953] 2
[1993] ICR 291; [1993] 1 All ER 42, HL(E) WLR 937; [1953] 1 All ER 1068; (1953) 37 Cr App R
71, CCA
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1
WLR 1234; [1966] 3 All ER 77, HL(E) R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411; 78 Cr
App R 276, CA
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341; [1981] 2 WLR 509;
[1981] 1 All ER 961; 73 Cr App R 13, HL(E) Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918, DC
R v Clarke (Joseph) [2009] EWCA Crim 1074; [2010] Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash [2010] EWCA Civ
1 WLR 223; [2009] 4 All ER 298, CA 1314; [2011] Lloyd's Rep FC 102, CA
R v Cornelius [2012] EWCA Crim 500; [2012] Lloyd's Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2
Rep FC 435, CA AC 164; [2002] 2 WLR 802; [2002] 2 All ER 377,
HL(E)
R v Feely [1973] QB 530; [1973] 2 WLR 201; [1973] 1
All ER 341; 57 Cr App R 312, CA Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718;
[1944] 2 All ER 293, CA
R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 AC 1034; [2003] 3
WLR 1060; [2003] 4 All ER 765; [2004] 1 Cr App R The following additional cases, although not cited,
21, HL(E) were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442; [1992] 3 WLR 1067; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004]
[1993] 1 All ER 1; 96 Cr App R 359, HL(E) EWCA Crim 868; [2005] QB 73; [2004] 3 WLR 451;
[2005] 4 All ER 303; [2004] 2 Cr App R 23, CA
R v Hayes [2015] EWCA Crim 1944; [2018] 1 Cr App
R 10, CA Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130; [1987] 3 WLR
611; [1987] 3 All ER 425; 85 Cr App R 378, PC
R v K [2001] UKHL 41; [2002] 1 AC 462; [2001] 3
WLR 471; [2001] 3 All ER 897; [2002] 1 Cr App R 13, Handyside v United Kingdom (Application No
HL(E) 5493/72) (1976) 1 EHRR 737
R v Kendrick [1997] 2 Cr App R 524, CA Kafkaris v Cyprus (Application No 21906/04) (2008)
49 EHRR 35, GC
R v Lawrence (Alan) [1972] AC 626; [1971] 3 WLR
225; [1971] 2 All ER 1253; 55 Cr App R 471, HL(E) Mulcahy v The Queen (1868) LR 3 HL 306, HL(I)
R v McIvor [1982] 1 WLR 409; [1982] 1 All ER 491; Norris v Government of the United States of America
74 Cr App R 74, CA [2008] UKHL 16; [2008] AC 920; [2008] 2 WLR 673;
Date and Time: Friday, 19 July 2024 9:49:00PM MYT
Job Number: 229233940
Documents (2)
1. Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
Client/Matter: -None-
[2020] EWCA Crim 575:
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
UK Cases -None-
2. Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685_Attachment1
Client/Matter: -None-
[2020] EWCA Crim 575:
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
UK Cases -None-
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
NATHAN A/L THARMALINGAM
, R v Barton and another
Overview | [2020] EWCA Crim 575, | [2021] QB 685, | [2020] 4 All ER 742, | [2020] All ER (D) 173
(Apr)
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685
[2020] EWCA Crim 575 conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of
reasonable and honest people and that in laying down
Court of Appeal such a requirement some 35 years previously the Court
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Dame Victoria Sharp P, of Appeal had taken a wrong turn. The defendants were
Fulford LJ, McGowan, Cavanagh JJ convicted. The defendants appealed against conviction,
contending: (i) that the judge should have applied the
2020 Jan 20, 21; April 29 test for dishonesty established by the Court of Appeal,
which remained binding; and (ii) that the judge had
Judicial precedent — Court of Appeal decision — erred in his approach to the offence of conspiracy to
Conflict of authority — Obiter dictum of Supreme defraud, which in any event was insufficiently precise to
Court disapproving long-standing test for meet the requirements of legal certainty at common law
dishonesty in criminal cases established by or under article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of
decision of Court of Appeal — Whether obiter Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms1.
dictum of Supreme Court effectively overruling
earlier Court of Appeal decision
1 Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 7(1): “No one shall
Crime — Conspiracy — Conspiracy to defraud — be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or
Defendants exploiting wealthy residents of luxury omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under
nursing home to profit from them — Whether national or international law at the time when it was
defendants acting dishonestly — Whether committed.”
dishonesty requiring defendant to appreciate
conduct dishonest by ordinary standards — On the appeals—
Whether offence requiring unlawful or aggravating
conduct over and above dishonest agreement Held, dismissing the appeals, (1) that where the
containing element of unlawfulness — Whether Supreme Court directed that an otherwise binding
offence sufficiently precise — Human Rights Act decision of the Court of Appeal should no longer be
1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 7 followed and proposed an alternative test that it said
had to be adopted, the Court of Appeal was bound to
The first defendant owned and operated a luxury follow what amounted to a direction from the
nursery home of which the second defendant was Supreme Court, even where that part of the Supreme
employed as general manager. The defendants were Court's decision was strictly obiter; that such limited
charged with a number of offences which included modification to the ordinary rules of precedent was
dishonesty as one of their elements, namely theft, confined to cases in which all the Justices in the
conspiracy to defraud, fraud and false accounting. The appeal in question in the Supreme Court had agreed
Crown's case was that over many years the first that to be the effect of their decision, so that the result
defendant had dishonestly exploited his relationship with was considered by the Supreme Court to be
wealthy and vulnerable residents of the home in order to definitive, with the consequence that any further
profit from them and that he had been assisted in his appeal would be a foregone conclusion; that,
criminal behaviour by the second defendant. At trial, therefore, the test for dishonesty in criminal
when dealing with how the jury were to approach the proceedings was the
question of dishonesty, the trial judge directed them in
[*686]
accordance with the test proposed in an obiter dictum of
the Supreme Court, which had unanimously determined test laid down by the Supreme Court in its obiter
that in a case of dishonesty the Crown was not required dictum, rather than the test previously established by
to prove that the defendant had appreciated that his the Court of Appeal; that, accordingly, when
NATHAN A/L THARMALINGAM
, Page 2 of 38
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
dishonesty was in question in criminal proceedings the court:
the jury would have to ascertain (i) what was the
Attorney General for Jersey v Holley [2005] UKPC
defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to
23; [2005] 2 AC 580; [2005] 3 WLR 29; [2005] 3 All
the facts and (ii) whether, in the light of the
ER 371; [2005] 2 Cr App R 36, PC
defendant's state of knowledge or belief as to the
facts, his conduct was dishonest by the standards of Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust
ordinary decent people; and that, in the present case, International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37; [2006] 1 WLR
the judge had properly directed the jury in 1476; [2006] 1 All ER 333, PC
accordance with that test (post, paras 1, 84, 104–108,
Director of Public Prosecutions v Patterson [2017]
114–116).
EWHC 2820 (Admin); [2018] 1 Cr App R 28, DC
Dicta of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (trading as
(UK) Ltd (trading as Crockfords Club) [2018] AC 391, Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391;
para 74, SC(E) followed. [2017] 3 WLR 1212; [2018] 2 All ER 406; [2018] 1 Cr
R v James [2006] QB 588, CA applied. App R 12, SC(E)
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, CA not followed. R v Cooke [1986] AC 909; [1986] 3 WLR 327; [1986]
2 All ER 985; 83 Cr App R 339, HL(E)
(2) That on a charge of conspiracy to defraud, the
Crown was required to prove that there had been a R v Evans (Eric) [2014] 1 WLR 2817
dishonest agreement which included unlawfulness, R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; [1982] 3 WLR 110;
either as to the object of the agreement or the means [1982] 2 All ER 689; 75 Cr App R 154, CA
by which it was to be carried out, which injured, or
had the potential to injure, a proprietary right or R v Goldshield Group plc [2008] UKHL 17; [2009] 1
interest of the victim; that although the offence would WLR 458; [2009] 2 All ER 737; [2009] 1 Cr App R 33,
not be committed in circumstances where there had HL(E)
been an agreement to achieve a lawful object by R v Gould [1968] 2 QB 65; [1968] 2 WLR 643; [1968]
lawful means, there was no requirement for any 1 All ER 849; 52 Cr App R 152, CA
additional unlawfulness or aggravating feature over
and above a dishonest agreement which included an R v H [2015] EWCA Crim 46, CA
element of unlawfulness, nor did the agreement [*687]
necessarily have to include the commission of a
substantive offence if carried out; that it followed that R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824; [2005] 1 WLR
the offence was sufficiently precise so as not to fall 3169; [2005] 2 Cr App R 21, CA
foul of article 7 of the Human Rights Convention; that R v Hinks [2001] 2 AC 241; [2000] 3 WLR 1590;
in the present case, the necessary element of [2000] 4 All ER 833; [2001] 1 Cr App R 18, HL(E)
unlawfulness was the positive and extensive deceit
R v James [2006] EWCA Crim 14; [2006] QB 588;
practised on the victims and others with the intention
[2006] 2 WLR 887; [2006] 1 All ER 759; [2006] 1 Cr
of prejudicing a proprietary right or interest by
App R 29, CA
obtaining property to which the defendants were not
entitled; that the offence had been properly described R v Scott [1975] AC 819; [1974] 3 WLR 741; [1974] 3
in the indictment, revealing in each instance an All ER 1032; 60 Cr App R 124, HL(E)
offence on which the jury were entitled to convict
R v Simpson [2003] EWCA Crim 1499; [2004] QB
such that the defendants would have been able
118; [2003] 3 WLR 337; [2003] 3 All ER 531; [2003] 2
readily to identify the case against them; that,
Cr App R 36, CA
furthermore, the judge had properly directed the jury
as to the elements of the offence requiring proof by R v Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146; [2000] 3 WLR
the Crown; and that, in all those circumstances, the 654; [2000] 4 All ER 289; [2001] 1 Cr App R 5, HL(E)
convictions were safe (post, paras 119–126, 155, 162).
R v Taylor [1950] 2 KB 368; [1950] 2 All ER 170; 34
R v Scott [1975] AC 819, HL(E) applied. Cr App R 138, CCA
Dicta of Hickinbottom J in R v Evans (Eric) [2014] 1 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC
WLR 2817, para 38 approved. 378; [1995] 3 WLR 64; [1995] 3 All ER 97, PC
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of The following additional cases were cited in
, Page 3 of 38
Regina v Barton and another [2021] QB 685, [2021] QB 685
argument:
R v Magro [2010] EWCA Crim 1575; [2011] QB 398;
Abou-Rahmah v Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492; [2010] 3 WLR 1694; [2011] 2 All ER 935; [2010] 2 Cr
[2007] Bus LR 220; [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 827, CA App R 25, CA
B (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] 2 R v Mazo (Ellen) [1997] 2 Cr App R 518, CA
AC 428; [2000] 2 WLR 452; [2000] 1 All ER 833;
[*688]
[2000] 2 Cr App R 65, HL(E)
R v Merriman [1973] AC 584; [1972] 3 WLR 545;
Boggeln v Williams [1978] 1 WLR 873; [1978] 2 All
[1972] 3 All ER 42; 56 Cr App R 766, HL(E)
ER 1061; 67 Cr App R 50, DC
R v Morgan [1976] AC 182; [1975] 2 WLR 913; [1975]
General Medical Council v Raychaudhuri
2 All ER 347; 61 Cr App R 136, HL(E)
(Professional Standards Authority for Health and
Social Care intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 2027; R v Morhall [1996] AC 90; [1995] 3 WLR 330; [1995]
[2019] 1 WLR 324, CA 3 All ER 659; [1995] 2 Cr App R 502, HL(E)
London and Globe Finance Corpn Ltd, In re [1903] 1 R v Morris (David) [1984] AC 320; [1983] 3 WLR 697;
Ch 728 [1983] 3 All ER 288; 77 Cr App R 309, HL(E)
Norris v Government of the United States of America R v Simpson [2003] EWCA Crim 1499; [2004] QB
(Goldshield Group plc intervening) [2007] EWHC 71 118; [2003] 3 WLR 337; [2003] 3 All ER 531; [2003] 2
(Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 1730; [2007] 2 All ER 29, DC Cr App R 36, CA
Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; [1992] 3 WLR 1032; R v Williams (Hywell Rhys) [1953] 1 QB 660; [1953] 2
[1993] ICR 291; [1993] 1 All ER 42, HL(E) WLR 937; [1953] 1 All ER 1068; (1953) 37 Cr App R
71, CCA
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1
WLR 1234; [1966] 3 All ER 77, HL(E) R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411; 78 Cr
App R 276, CA
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341; [1981] 2 WLR 509;
[1981] 1 All ER 961; 73 Cr App R 13, HL(E) Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918, DC
R v Clarke (Joseph) [2009] EWCA Crim 1074; [2010] Starglade Properties Ltd v Nash [2010] EWCA Civ
1 WLR 223; [2009] 4 All ER 298, CA 1314; [2011] Lloyd's Rep FC 102, CA
R v Cornelius [2012] EWCA Crim 500; [2012] Lloyd's Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2
Rep FC 435, CA AC 164; [2002] 2 WLR 802; [2002] 2 All ER 377,
HL(E)
R v Feely [1973] QB 530; [1973] 2 WLR 201; [1973] 1
All ER 341; 57 Cr App R 312, CA Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718;
[1944] 2 All ER 293, CA
R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 AC 1034; [2003] 3
WLR 1060; [2003] 4 All ER 765; [2004] 1 Cr App R The following additional cases, although not cited,
21, HL(E) were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
R v Gomez [1993] AC 442; [1992] 3 WLR 1067; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004]
[1993] 1 All ER 1; 96 Cr App R 359, HL(E) EWCA Crim 868; [2005] QB 73; [2004] 3 WLR 451;
[2005] 4 All ER 303; [2004] 2 Cr App R 23, CA
R v Hayes [2015] EWCA Crim 1944; [2018] 1 Cr App
R 10, CA Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130; [1987] 3 WLR
611; [1987] 3 All ER 425; 85 Cr App R 378, PC
R v K [2001] UKHL 41; [2002] 1 AC 462; [2001] 3
WLR 471; [2001] 3 All ER 897; [2002] 1 Cr App R 13, Handyside v United Kingdom (Application No
HL(E) 5493/72) (1976) 1 EHRR 737
R v Kendrick [1997] 2 Cr App R 524, CA Kafkaris v Cyprus (Application No 21906/04) (2008)
49 EHRR 35, GC
R v Lawrence (Alan) [1972] AC 626; [1971] 3 WLR
225; [1971] 2 All ER 1253; 55 Cr App R 471, HL(E) Mulcahy v The Queen (1868) LR 3 HL 306, HL(I)
R v McIvor [1982] 1 WLR 409; [1982] 1 All ER 491; Norris v Government of the United States of America
74 Cr App R 74, CA [2008] UKHL 16; [2008] AC 920; [2008] 2 WLR 673;
