Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
4�King’s�Bench�Walk�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Criminal�Law�Update�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
January�2012�
Timothy Raggatt QC Roger Thomas QC
Basil Hillman Robert Spencer Bernard
Kate Mallison Naomi Perry Peter Fortune
Nicholas Doherty Reginald Arkhurst
Gwynn Price-Rolands Kim Preston
Tamala McGee Nadia Chbat
Olive Lycourgou Beverly Roberts
John Upton Gavin Holme Lee Harris
Robert Salis Michael Roques Justine Davidge
Jerome Silva Marc Tregidgo Richard Moss
Joanna Durber John Brown
Keith Webster Abbey Vooght Tomas Quinn Brian Costello Sophie Chaplin
Philippe Bonavero Helen Dobby
Ricky Gardner
Clerks
Tom Priest
Team�Members� What's�in�this�edition� x� Criminal�sanctions�for�contempt�in�civil�proceedings,�Immediate�cusͲ
tody�for�exaggerating�a�personal�injury�claim.��x� Appealing�ruling�of��no�case�to�answer.� x� The�British�Firearms�Handbook��(Formally�published�as�Gun�Law).��x� New�members�profiles.��x� Updates��
I� would� like� to�take� this� opporͲtunity� to� welͲcome�you�to�the�r e b r a n d e d�4KBW� criminal�Law��newsletter.��
�We�welcome� Lee�Harris�and�Tomas�Quinn�to�our�team�and�their�profiles�are�included.��It� is� also� an� opportunity� for�memͲbers� of� the� 4KBW� to� demonstrate�their� experience� and� skills� to� proͲvide�you�with�a�better�picture�of�the�criminal�team�as�a�whole.��We� hope� you� find� the� newsletter�useful�and�encourage�feedback.��We�wish�you�all�the�best�for�2012�
��
�Gavin�Holme�Ͳ�Team�Head�
As� we� enter�2012� our� crimiͲnal� group� is� alͲready� looking�forward� to� the�new� challenges�that� this� year�
will�bring.��With� legal� aid� being� cut� and� high�contributions� for� defendants� we�have� looked�at�and�now�offer�comͲpetitive�private� fee�packages� to�our�professional� and� lay� clients� which�give�financial�certainty�to�a�case.���These� packages� are� available� from�our�silks� to�our�most� junior� tenants�and�covers�all�work�undertake�in�the�criminal� field.�We�have�piloted� this�with� a� few� of� our� solicitor� clients�and�they�have�found�it�popular�with�some�of�their�lay�clients.��For�more�information�please�conͲtact�chambers.�
Lee�Cook�Ͳ�Principal�Clerk�
Keith� has� a�mixed� practice.�He� is� regularly�instructed� in�Crime,� EmployͲment� Law,�ComͲmercial�Contract�Law� and� PerͲsonal� Injury.� His�criminal�practice�
spans�the�gamut�of�offences�as�well�as�matters� of� confiscation� and� forfeiture.�He� particularly� enjoys� cases� involving�financial� wrongdoing� and� regulatory�crime,�where� his� previous� career� as� a�senior� company� director� gives� him� an�astute�perspective.��Solicitors� find� him� userͲfriendly;� effiͲcient� and� communicative.� Lay� clients�value�his�approachability�and�clear,�noͲnonsense�advice.�For� more� information� please�visit�www.keithwebster.co.uk��
Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��
Edward�Nield,�Acromas�Insurance�Company�Limited�v�Graham�Jeffrey�Loveday,�Susan�Loveday�[2011]�
EWHC�2324�(Admin)�
Lane�v�Shah�[2011]�EWHC�2962�(Admin)�
�
Two�cases� this�year� featured�covert�surveillance� evidence� obtained� by�insurance� companies� to�expose� lies�and� exaggerations� by� claimants� in�personal�injury�claims.�In�both�cases�the�High�Court�showed�a�willingness�to�respond�with�sentences�of�immeͲdiate�custody.�
�
The�first�case,�in�July�2011,�was�that�of� Graham� Loveday� and� his� wife,�Susan.� In� his� witness� statement,�made� in� August� 2009,� he� claimed�that�he�needed�to�use�a�wheelchair�to�travel�any�distance,�that�he�relied�fully�upon�his�wife� to�help�him�and�that� he� struggled� with� stairs� or�steps.�He�described�the�effect�of�the�back�pain�as� causing�an� "absolutely�crippling"� fear� of� travelling.� The�prospect� of� going� in� a� car� would�make�him�violently�ill.�
�
Covert� surveillance� footage,� obͲtained� by� the� Claimant’s� insurers,�revealed� that� at� no� time� was� Mr�Loveday� seen� in� a� wheelchair.� He�was�always�able�to�walk,�sometimes�slowly� but� at� other� times� without�any�apparent�problem.�He�carried�a�walking� stick� but� not� always� in� the�same�hand�and�there�was�nothing�to�suggest�that�he�struggled�with�steps�
or� stairs.� At� no� time� was� his� wife�seen�helping�him�nor�was�there�anyͲthing� to� suggest� that� she�was� conͲstantly� caring� for� him� as� he� had�claimed� –� in� fact,� sometimes� she�would� drop� him� off� in� the� car� and�drive�away.�
�
The� Defendant’s� insurers� counterͲclaimed,� seeking� a� declaration� that�the�claim� was� "contaminated� by�‘spectacular� dishonesty’� in� that� the�Claimant�had�set�out�to�perpetrate�a�‘manipulation�of�the�civil�justice�sysͲtem�on� a� grand� scale’",� and� for�his�claim�to�be�struck�out�as�an�abuse�of�the� court's� process.� They� also� put�Mr�Loveday�on� notice� that� permisͲsion� to� commence� committal� proͲceedings� for� his� contempt� of� court�would�be�sought.�
�
His�wife�subsequently�admitted�that�the�elements�of�her�statement�supͲporting� the� level� of� care,� the� reͲquirement� for�a�wheelchair�and�the�description�of�Mr�Loveday�as�a�virtuͲally� housebound� recluse� were� not�true�at�the�time�she�made�the�stateͲment.�
�
Mr�Loveday�was�found�guilty�of�conͲtempt� of� court,� pursuant� to� CPR�32.14.� The� court� noted� that,� irreͲspective�of�his�inability�to�pay�a�fine,�the� appropriate� sentence� was� one�of� nine�months� immediate� custody�(the� maximum� would� have� been�two�years).�Mrs�Loveday� received�a�sixͲmonth� suspended� sentence,� reͲflecting� her� lesser� but� significant�involvement�in�the�deception.�
�
The� Judge,� quoting� Lord� Justice�Moses� in�South�Wales�Fire�and�ResͲcue� v� Smith� [2011]� EWHC� 1749�(Admin),� stated:� � “Those�who�make�false�claims,�if�caught,�should�expect�to� go� to� prison.� There� is� no� other�way� to�underline� the�gravity�of� the�conduct,� there� is� no� other� way� to�
deter�those�who�may�be�tempted�to�make� such� claims,� and� there� is� no�other� way� to� improve� the� adminiͲstration�of�justice.”�
�
In�October�of�this�year,�the�Loveday�case�was� followed�by� the�Divisional�Court� in� the� case� of� Lane� v� Shah�[2011]�EWHC�2962�(Admin).�Here�an�accountant�claimed�that�her�injuries�following� a� road� traffic� accident�made� her� unable� to� work.� Two�other� witnesses� produced� witness�statements� in� support� of� this� fact.�Covert� surveillance� obtained� by� inͲsurers�revealed� that�she�had� in� fact�been�working�over�a� lengthy�period�at�an�apparently� full� time� job�as�at�an� address� in� Stanmore.� It� showed�that�she�was�well�able�to�shop,�walk,�lift,� carry� and� bend.� Following� this,�she�admitted�her�deception.�
�
She� received� an� immediate� custoͲdial�sentence�of�six�months;�each�of�her� witnesses� received� immediate�custodial� sentences� of� three�months.�
Keith�Webster��
Criminal�sanctions�for��
contempt�in�civil�proceedings�
Immediate�custody�for��
exaggerating�a�personal��
injury�claim�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
The�prosecution�sought�leave�to�appeal�a�ruling�of�Dobbs�J�on�4th�NoͲvember�2011�made�at�the�close�of�the�prosecution�case�in�a�manͲslaughter�trial�at�Nottingham�Crown�Court.��Timothy�Raggatt�QC�apͲpeared�for�the�Crown�in�this�sucͲcessful�appeal.��At�trial,�Eva�Logina�and�Rashpal�Chana,�were�charged�with,�and�subsequently�convicted�of,�the�manslaughter�of�Kristiana�Logina.��Kristiana�was�the�two�year�old�daughter�of�Eva�Logina.��Eva�LogͲina�and�Rashpal�Chana�had�been�in�a�relationship�for�three�months�and�they�lived�together�along�with�Eva�Logina’s�two�children.��Rashpal�Chana�was�the�respondent�in�the�application.��Kristiana�died�on�15th�February�2010�from�the�onset�of�septicaemia�and�other�complications�as�a�result�of�a�severe�burn.��The�burn�had�been�of�sufficient�severity�so�as�to�require�urgent�inpatient�hospital�treatment�and�the�failure�to�afford�the�child�such�treatment�caused�her�death.��The�evidence�established�that�it�was�likely�that�the�burns�had�occurred�some�12�days�prior.��During�submissions,�and�at�the�apͲpeal,�the�prosecution�contended�that�it�would�be�open�to�the�jury�to�convict�Rashpal�Chana�of�manͲslaughter�even�if�he�had�not�been�aware�of�the�injury�at�the�time�of�its�occurrence�but�had�become�aware�at�a�time�when�the�failure�to�take�action�caused�death�and�his�failure�was�so�serious�to�amount�to�a�crimiͲnal�omission.��The�prosecution�had�to�adduce�sufficient�evidence�as�to�
the�timing�of�the�injury,�its�appearͲance�and�effect�on�the�child�as�to�justify�the�inference�that�Rashpal�Chana�must�have�known�of�the�inciͲdent�and�that�it�was�of�a�severity�requiring�assistance.����The�evidence�showed�that�the�burns�were�extensive�and�ran�across�the�child’s�buttocks�and�down�one�leg.��They�would�have�developed�in�colͲour�over�a�short�number�of�days.��In�addition�to�the�appearance�of�the�burns,�the�edges�of�the�injuries�would�have�caused�intense�pain�esͲpecially�when�rubbing�against�clothͲing�or�when�sitting�down.��After�four�to�five�days�a�noxious�smell�would�emerge�from�the�injury,�which�could�not�be�remedied�by�cleaning�the�wound.��Furthermore,�the�evidence�was�that�the�child�would�have�beͲcome�increasingly�unwell�and�outͲwardly�not�functioning�as�a�normal�healthy�two�year�old.����In�interview,�the�respondent�stated�that�he�had�been�working�long�hours�from�7.00pm�to�9.00pm�and�claimed�that�he�was�unaware�of�what�had�happened.��The�question�arose�in�the�appeal�as�to�the�extent�to�which�the�judge�could�use�his�asͲsertions�that�he�had�not�been�preͲsent�during�the�day�when�considerͲing�whether�there�was�sufficient�evidence�to�infer�knowledge�of�the�injury.��The�general�proposition�is�that�selfͲserving�or�exculpatory�statements�are�not�evidence�that�the�judge�can�take�into�account�at�that�stage.��The�Court�of�Appeal�found�that�the�judge�placed�too�much�emphasis�on�the�extent�to�which�the�prosecution�could�rebut�this�account.��The�real�question�was�whether�there�was�sufficient�eviͲdence�from�which�the�jury�could�infer�that�there�had�been�sufficient�contact�for�the�respondent�to�obͲserve�and�appreciate�the�injury�and�its�effect�on�the�child.����
In�her�ruling,�the�judge�held�that�it�would�require�there�to�have�been�close�and�regular�contact�for�the�jury�to�conclude�that�they�were�sure�that�he�was�aware�of�the�symptoms�relied�upon.��However,�the�Court�of�Appeal�held�that�this�was�a�view�of�the�facts�taken�by�the�Judge�but�may�not�have�been�the�view�taken�by�the�jury.��Although�the�evidence�was�neutral�as�to�whether�regular�or�lengthy�contact�had�taken�place�it�did�not�flow�that�absent�such�eviͲdence�no�jury�could�reasonably�infer�that�the�respondent�would�have�known�of�the�injury.��The�medical�evidence�did�not�support�the�propoͲsition�that�it�would�require�close�and�regular�contact�with�the�child�to�have�observed�the�injury�and�its�efͲfect.����The�respondent�did�admit�to�seeing�the�child�during�the�period�of�the�12�days�prior�to�her�death.��These�12�days�spanned�two�weekends�over�which�the�respondent�and�Kristiana�had�been�living�in�the�same�houseͲhold.��In�fact�he�admitted�to�having�seen�her�to�a�sufficient�extent�to�have�made�him�concerned�that�she�was�suffering�from�nappy�rash�and�advised�Eva�to�purchase�cream.��Given�the�evidence�of�the�symptoms�and�severity�of�the�injury,�the�jury�would�be�entitled�to�infer�that,�in�suggesting�it�appeared�to�be�no�more�than�nappy�rash,�the�responͲdent�sought�to�minimise�her�condiͲtion�and�the�jury�would�be�entitled�to�question�his�motivation�for�doing�so.��Further,�the�medical�evidence�suggested�it�would�be�difficult�to�mistake�the�burns�for�nappy�rash.��It�was�a�matter�for�the�jury�to�deͲcide�whether�it�would�require�close�and�regular�contact�with�the�child�in�order�to�observe�the�effects�of�the�burns.��The�judge�ruled�that�it�would�be�difficult�for�the�jury�to�conclude�that�the�respondent�deliberately�ignored�the�symptoms.��However,�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]� 4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��
Appealing�ruling�of��no�case�to�answer�
�R�v�Rashpal�Chana�
�Timothy�Raggatt�QC�
this�was�not�the�correct�test.��The�real�question�was�not�the�difficulty�in�reaching�such�a�conclusion�but�whether�the�jury�were�entitled�to�reach�that�conclusion.�Once�there�was�sufficient�evidence�on�which�a�jury�could�have�inferred�that�he�knew�of�the�injuries,�it�was�inevitaͲble�that�the�case�could�not�be�stopped.��In�her�ruling,�the�judge�stated�that�it�was�a�borderline�case�and�in�any�event�she�would�have�exercised�her�discretion�to�withdraw�the�case�from�the�jury.��Although�the�Court�of�Appeal�were�satisfied�that�the�judge�had�applied�the�correct�test,�it�was�emphasised�that�where�a�judge�has�found�that�a�jury�could�properly�convict�there�is�no�discretion�to�withdraw�the�case.��The�Court�apͲproved�the�approach�to�submissions�of�no�case�to�answer�taken�in�the�case�of�R�v�K�and�W.��As�the�court�said�in�that�case,�the�case�does�not�depend�on�the�exercise�of�discretion�but�rather�calls�for�a�careful�considͲeration�of�the�evidence�and�an�analysis�of�the�findings�which�the�jury�could�properly�make.��Where�there�are�findings�that�a�jury�could�make�to�support�the�Crown’s�case�then�the�case�should�be�left�to�the�jury.����The�Court�of�Appeal�held�that�they�formed�the�firm�view�that�there�was�sufficient�evidence�upon�which�a�jury�properly�directed�could�have�inferred�that�the�respondent�must�have�known�that�the�child�was�suffiͲciently�seriously�injured�to�require�outside�help.��Thus�the�Court�of�ApͲpeal�reversed�the�ruling�and�the�case�proceeded.���������������
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]� 4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�Article��
���������Timothy� practises� in� all� areas� of�criminal� law� but� particularly� murͲder,� serious� fraud,�drug� related�ofͲfences,� arson� and� serious� sexual�offences� cases.� He� is� also� authorͲised� to� try� all� Serious� Sexual� OfͲfences�in�his�capacity�as�a�Recorder.�����He�has�appeared� in�a� large�number�of�complex�and�serious�trials� in�the�South�East�and�West�Midlands�and�in� �particular�has�been� at� the� very�forefront� of� most� of� the� leading�cases�involving�“Black�on�Black”�gun�crime�in�the�West�Midlands.��Timothy� also� played� a� central� part�as� Leading� Counsel� in� the� recent�evolution�of�the�law�of�evidence�on�key�witness� protection� issues� such�as�anonymity�and�special�protection�measures�advising�the�police� in�the�Midlands� on� overall� policy� as� well�as�on�a�case�by�case�basis.�����During� recent� years� Timothy� has�been�instructed�all�over�the�country�in�centres�such�as�Leeds,�ManchesͲter,�Birmingham�and�London.�TimoͲthy� prosecutes� for� the� CPS� in� the�Midlands� and� Thames� Valley� areas�and� act� for� the� defence� on� a� naͲtional� basis.� As� well� as� the� above�Timothy� has� an� extensive� referral�practice� in� the� Court� of� Appeal�Criminal�Division.����Through�the�cases�that�Timothy�has�conducted�he�has�built�up�an�extenͲsive� specialist�knowledge� in�mobile�phone� technology� and� cell� site�analysis� as� well� as� in� DNA� techͲ
��������
About�Chambers����
Other�Specialist�Practise�Areas�Family�
Immigration�Employment�
Property�and�Housing�Personal�Injury�
�Members�undertake�most�areas�under�the�common�law�banner�for�further�information�please�
contact�our�clerks�room.���
Seminars��
Chambers�runs�a�series�of�CPD�acͲcredited�seminars�held�at�the�colͲlege�of�law�in�London,�Store�Street,�
London,�WC1E�7DE����
More information will be posted on our website
Www.4kbw.co.uk
Timothy�Raggatt�QC�
Criminal�Law�Update�Ͳ�New�Publication�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
����������
Chambers�is�pleased�to�announce�the�upcoming�publication�of�The�British� Firearms� Law� Handbook�by�Laura�Saunsbury�and�Nick�DoͲherty�with�Helen�Dobby.����Laura� and� Nick� were� invited� to�edit� this� core� text� due� to� their�specialism,�experience�and� interͲest�in�firearms�law.��Since�the�last�edition� of� the� book� was� pubͲlished� in� 1999� there� have� been�some� very� significant� changes� in�firearms�law.�The�book�therefore�includes�substantial�new�material�covering�these�changes.��The� book� is� devoted� exclusively�to� the� law� relating� to� the�use�of�guns.� In� it� the� ordinary� person�who�handles�guns�will�find�all�the�requirements� of� the� law� which�he� needs� to� know,� and� those�who�have�to�apply�or�enforce�the�law�will�find�it�of�invaluable�assisͲtance�to�them�in�their�work.��The�book� addresses� a�wide� range� of�issues� including:� shooting� game,�protected� birds� and� animals,�guns� for� sport,� rifle� clubs,� the�tenant’s� right� to� shoot,� the�defiͲnitions�of� firearms� and� ammuniͲtion� (including� prohibited�weapͲons� and� imitation� firearms),� the�
licensing�of� firearms,�how� to�obͲtain�a� license�and�how�to�appeal�a� refusal� or� revocation,� young�people� and� guns,� poaching,� and�criminal�offences�relating�to� fireͲarms�and�ammunition.��To� order� your� copy:� http://ww.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?reͲcordid=4725&productid=433909���
THE�BRITISH�FIREARMS�LAW�HANDBOOK�(FORMERLY�PUBLISHED�AS�GUN�LAW)�
Laura�Saunsbury��Nick�Doherty�Helen�Dobby��
����������Nick�Doherty�has�been� involved�with� firearms� law� for� over� 25�years.� He� is� the� Chairman� of� a�rifle�and�pistol� club�and� in�2008�Nick� was� appointed� the� only�common�law�legal�advisor�to�the�International� Council� for� Game�and�Wildlife�Conservation.���
�
�
�
Helen�Dobby’s� criminal� practice�encompasses� both� prosecution�and�defence�work.�She� regularly�appears� in� the� Crown� Court,�Magistrates'� Court� and� Youth�Court�and�has�dealt�with�a�wide�range� of� offences� from� firearms�to� motoring� offences.� � Prior� to�being�called�to�the�Bar,�she�comͲpleted�internships�with�the�InterͲnational� Criminal� Court� and� the�International� Criminal� Tribunal�for� Yugoslavia.� � She� also� pracͲtices� family� law,�personal� injury,�housing�and�civil�litigation.�
�������Laura� Saunsbury� is�a�consultant�at� London� based� Lewis� Nedas�and� instructs� members� of� 4�KBW.��
Areas�of�Practice�Crime� Ͳ� Lee� has�an�extensive�and�varied� criminal�law� practice,�both�prosecuting�and� defending.�He� practises� in�all�areas�of�crime�
including� offences� of� violence,� disͲhonesty,� those� of� a� sexual� nature,�and�those�involving�drugs.�He�is�also�happy�to�accept�instructions�in�relaͲtion�to�road�traffic�offences.��He� prosecutes� regularly� in� the�Crown�Court,�Youth�Court�and�MagͲistrates� Court,� and� has� also� apͲpeared� in� the�High�Court�on�behalf�of� the� Crown� Prosecution� Service.�He� has� represented� the� Crown� in�trials� relating� to� offences� such� as�grievous�bodily�harm,�sexual�assault�(including� against� children),� and�drug� cultivation.� He� is� experienced�in� effective� case� management� and�strategy,�and�also�has� the�ability� to�put� young,� vulnerable,� and� scared�victims� and� witnesses� at� ease� and�make� them� comfortable� with� the�court�process.��Lee� also�defends� clients� in� a�whole�range� of� criminal� offences� in� the�Crown� Court,� as� well� as� accepting�privately� funded� instructions� in� the�Magistrates�Court.�He� is�also�happy�to� advise�both� lay� and�professional�clients�as�to�the�merits�of�their�case.�He�has� recently� represented� clients�facing� charges�as�diverse�as� serious�identity� fraud,� drink� driving,� and�supplying� cannabis.� Lee� has� also�represented� people� against� whom�confiscation� orders� have� been�sought.��Family� Ͳ�Although�experienced�in�all�areas� of� family� law,� Lee� has� a� parͲticular�specialism� in�the� law�relating�to� children.� He� acts� in� private� law�
Criminal�Law�Update��Ͳ��Member�Profiles�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
proceedings� involving� disputes� of� resiͲdence,� contact,� international� moveͲment�of� children,�and� child�abduction.�He�also�acts� in�public� law�matters�repͲresenting�parents�and�guardians�in�relaͲtion�to�all�aspects�of�care�proceedings.�He� is� used� to� dealing� with� complex�cases� involving�psychiatric�assessments�of�children�and� implacable�hostility�beͲtween�parties.�His�ability� to�empathise�with�often�distressed�lay�clients,�and�to�negotiate� effectively� with� his� oppoͲnents�means�that�a�beneficial�outcome�can�be�achieved.���Professional�Memberships�Middle�Temple�Criminal�Bar�Association��Professional�Courses�Forensic�Accounting�Professional�Ethics�
�Tom�was� called� to�the� bar� in�2006.� � He� comͲpleted�his�pupilage�and� worked� as� in�house� counsel� for�a�number�of�years�at� Kaim� Todner�
LLP,� and� has� extensive� experience� in�the� Magistrates� Courts,� the� Crown�Court,� and� the� Court� of�Appeal.� � Tom�has�dealt�with�multiͲhanded�cases�and�serious�offences� such�as�Conspiracy� to�Kidnap,� False� Imprisonment,� and�GBH� .� �He�has�also�been� led� in�murder�and� rape�cases� for� the�defence.� �Since�joining�4�King's�Bench�Walk�he�has�deͲveloped�a�prosecution�practice� in�both�the�Magistrates'� Court� and� the� Crown�Court.� � He� has� further� appeared� in�Court�Martials,� representing�members�of�the�Armed�Forces�in�the�United�KingͲdom�and� in�Germany�and�hopes�to�exͲtend�his�practice� in� this� area.� �UnusuͲally,� Tom� is� a� Fully� Accredited� Police�Station� Representative� and� is� MagisͲtrates�Court�Duty�Accredited.���
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�
Lee�Harris(Called�1999)�
Tomas�Quinn�(Called�2006)�
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/hallͲothersͲjudgmentͲ24112011��R�v�Hall�and�others,�November�2011��New�guidelines�for�the�sentencing�of�historic�sexual�offences.�In�this�case�the�Court�of�Appeal�summarised�sentencing�principles�derived�from�statute�and�authorities�to�be�used�in�historic�sexual�cases.� It�concerns�eight�separate�appeals�all�concerning�convictions� for�historic�sexual�offences,�with�the�Court�of�Appeal�acknowledging� the�difficulties� in� reconciling�case� law,�statute�and� the�Sentencing�Guideline�on�Sexual�Offences.�The�definitive�sentencing�guidelines�should�be�used�in�a�measured�way�in�such�cases,�and�the�followͲing�considerations�treated�as�guidance.��x� Sentence�will�be� imposed�at�the�date�of�the�sentencing�hearing,�on�the�basis�of�the� legislative�provisions�then�
current,�and�by�measured�reference�to�any�definitive�sentencing�guidelines�relevant�to�the�situation�revealed�by�the�established�facts.�
�x� Although�sentence�must�be�limited�to�the�maximum�sentence�at�the�date�when�the�offence�was�committed,�it�is�
not�realistic�to�expect�a�sentence�assessment� to�determine�what�the� likely�sentence�would�have�been� if�conͲvicted�at,�or�shortly�after�the�offence�happened.�
�x� The�main�focus�should�remain�on�the�particular�circumstances�in�which�the�offence�was�committed�and�its�seriͲ
ousness.�Allowance�for�the�passage�of�time�may�be�appropriate,�and�have�a�bearing�on�the�offender’s�culpabilͲity,�in�particular�if�the�offender�was�very�young�at�the�time�of�the�offence.�
�x� Circumstances�in�which�the�facts�have�come�to�light�must�be�looked�at,�as�well�as�careful�judgement�of�the�harm�
done�to�the�victim.�Care�must�be�taken�in�assessing�the�true�extent�of�the�defendant’s�criminality�by�reference�to�what�was�actually�done�and�the�circumstances�in�which�they�were�done.�
�x� The�passing�of�time�since�the�offence�may�be�an�aggravating�feature�if�the�defendant�has�continued�to�commit�
sexual�crime,�or�represented�a�continuing�risk�to�the�public.�Comparative�mitigation�can�be�found�if�there�is�no�evidence�of�any�further�offending,�particularly�if�accompanied�by�evidence�of�positive�good�character.�
�x� Early�admissions�and�guilty�plea�are�of�particular� importance� in�historic�cases,�as�these�provide�vindication�for�
the�victim�which�is�often�of�great�importance�to�them.�
�Harvey�v�Director�of�Public�Prosecutions,�AC,�17�November�2011��This� case� received�much� press� attention,�with� newspapers� declaring� that� the� courts�were� condoning� defendants�swearing�at�police�officers.��The�reality� is�that�this�case�does�not�change�what�has�been�the�position�for�some�time.�Although�a�section�5�Public�Order�Act�1986�offence�requires� limited�criminal� intent�on�the�part�of�the�defendant,�the�Crown�does�need�to�show�that�the�words�were�said�within�the�hearing�of�someone�likely�to�be�caused�alarm,�harassment�or�distress.�The�reality�is�that�most�people�hear�bad�and�rude�language�on�a�daily�basis,�and�police�officers�in�particular�are�more�likely�to�find�it�unnecessary�and�irritating�rather�than�alarming�or�distressing.�Without�evidence�of�the�words�being�likely�to�cause�fear,�alarm�or�distress�to�anyone�who�could�hear�them�the�case�will�fail.�The�circumstances�and�context�in�which�such�words�are�said�is�the�crucial�factor�in�such�cases,�but�this�case�does�not�provide�a�green�light�to�swear�at�police�officers�Ͳ�however�tempting�it�may�be.�
Criminal�Law�Update��Ͳ��Updates�
4�King’s�Bench�Walk,�Inner�Temple,�London�EC4Y�7DL.�Tel:�020�7822�7000.��Web:�www.4kbw.co.uk.�Email:�[email protected]�