R v Caceres

Sentence Imprisonment. The victim had been the victim of years of domestic abuse at the hands of the defendant, his partner. The defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, one count of causing actual bodily harm, two counts of common assault and one count of criminal damage. The defendant received a total sentence of four years and two months' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeal stating that in all the circumstances of the case the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Bodhaniya v Crown Prosecution Service

Road Traffic Offence. Following a collision on the M1 motorway, the appellant provided a positive roadside breath test and was taken to the police station where he was unable to provide a second breath test. He was asked to provide a specimen of blood which, on analysis, was found to contain over the legal limit of alcohol and was subsequently convicted of drink driving. The district judge concluded that it had been a reasonable inference by the police from the evidence that the appellant had not been able to provide a breath test due to the accident, that that could amount to a medical reason and that the police had had reasonable cause to believe that. Accordingly, the police had been entitled to require a specimen of blood or urine. The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, on the evidence, the inference drawn by the district judge that the police officer had had reasonable cause to believe that the appellant's inability to provide a specimen had been for a medical reason had been one open to him.

R v Dossett

Evidence Admissibility. The defendant had been found guilty of robbery following trial. He appealed against conviction contending that the judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury because of the weakness of identification evidence and the judge should not have allowed the prosecution to adduce evidence of the defendant's two previous convictions. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the quality of the identification evidence had been good enough to justify the judge's leaving the case to the jury and that it had been correct to adduce the evidence of the previous convictions which, amongst other things, demonstrated the defendant's tendency to commit offences such as the robbery committed in the present case.

*Melli Bank Plc v Holbug Ltd

Company Assets. The claimant bank successfully applied for summary judgment regarding payments due under a discount facility agreement. Following the freezing of the claimant's assets by the introduction of sanctions against Iran, the defendant company claimed that the agreement had been either frustrated or had been terminated by the defendant's acceptance of a repudiatory breach by the claimant.

*R v Hussain

Criminal law Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused the Crown leave to appeal following a judge had acceded to an application on behalf of the respondent to stay remaining counts on an indictment relating to child prostitution and sexual offences against children and young adults. As the respondent had already faced two trials and that experience had resulted in him developing mental illness as a result, it was held that continuation of the proceedings would be oppressive and unjust.

R v Lingu

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences of unlawful wounding, attempted robbery and possessing a prohibited weapon, and he was sentenced to a total term imposed was nine years' imprisonment. In allowing the defendant's appeal against sentence in part, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that insufficient account had been taken of the basis of plea, and that insufficient weight had been given to the genuine remorse of the defendant and his willingness to cooperate with the police. The sentence was reduced to seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment.

R v Ricketts

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and to theft having punched and kicked his ex-girlfriend, and having stolen her bag after an evening spent consuming alcohol. He was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for the assault and to 12 months' imprisonment, to run consecutively for the theft. In dismissing the defendant's appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge had correctly applied the guidelines and his approach could not be faulted.

R (on the application of Parker) v Argentina

Extradition Discharge of fugitive. The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant, a British citizen, to Argentina to face charges in connection with a drug offence. The judge sent the case to the Secretary of State for a decision as to whether the appellant should be extradited. The appellant appealed. In dismissing the appeal, the Queen's Bench Division held that the mere fact that the appellant could not make an application for bail in Argentina, which would be very likely to be rejected on its merits anyway, did not constitute, of itself, a flagrant breach of art 5(3) of the Convention. Further, there the court was not persuaded that the judge had erred in his decision.

R v Bryant

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant was sentenced in connection with offences, including battery, committed against his mother. He was sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, and also made the subject of a restraining order. Having breached the order, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and ordered to serve six months of an activated seven month suspended sentence, to run consecutively to the 12-month term imposed for breaching the restraining order. In allowing the defendant's appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a further short term of imprisonment was required to reflect the fact of a deliberate breach of the restraining order. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was reduced to 3 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the 6 months' imprisonment.

R v Wright

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had pleaded guilty to three counts of thefts of catalytic converters from Ford motor vehicles. He received sentences of 16 months' imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. He appealed against sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendant's appeal, stating that the consideration of the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence, together with the fact that it would not have given full credit for the defendant's relatively late guilty plea, meant that the sentence imposed had not been manifestly excessive.