A discussion on when and if the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to take over and put a stop to private prosecutions.

Although both the law surrounding human rights and the use of judicial review to uphold it have grown exponentially in the UK in recent times, there are still plenty of jurisdictions where even fundamental principles of justice are not respected with any consistency.

The right of a person to discuss certain matters with their lawyer, no matter how nefarious, without fear of their confidence being broken is one that has been recognised since the 16th Century.

‘To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence’ is a familiar reason given by police officers to justify the arrest of a suspect.

On 15th December 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued its final judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom.

Suppose that a convicted drug trafficker is found to have benefited from his trafficking to the extent of £1m but, having at the time realisable property worth only £100,000, a confiscation order is initially made against him just for this lesser sum.

The English criminal trial process is an adversarial one. A proper examination of the evidence is achieved by both the prosecution and the defence being represented by equally able advocates who can present their client's case and test that of their opponent.

A defendant’s ‘benefit’ from criminal conduct is the proceeds of his crime, not his net profit.

The appeal in King v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2009] UKHL 17, concerned the scope of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3181) (‘the Statutory Instrument’), which enables the Crown Court to make a restraint order at the request of a foreign state.

Most, if not all, cases in the magistrates’ court will be governed by the provisions of the CPIA 1996, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

When can a party be said conclusively to have conceded a point, and how should lawyers deal with concessions or apparent concessions?

A problem frequently encountered in the context of restraint orders arises where a defendant subject to a restraint order owes a debt to a third party.

Nor do ‘adequate procedures' feature in the legislative regime governing DPAs.

This article aims to explore the practical utility of the Court of Appeal's decision in the recent case of R v. King [2012] EWCA Crim 805 (Pitchford LJ, Cox J & Burnett J.

Shrien Dewani, the man accused of arranging for the murder of his wife during a South African honeymoon, is said to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and there are unconfirmed reports of a suicide attempt.

On 25th October 2011, the Court of Appeal (Lord Chief Justice, Henriques J., Gloster J.) issued its judgment in R v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2012] EWCA Crim 2.

In the summer of 2011 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of an appellant who had entered the United Kingdom on false identity documents and had as a result been charged and convicted by her plea of an offence under section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006.

Of every 10,000 applications for a mortgage, as many as twenty seven are fraudulent1. Such frauds are more likely to be discovered during a period of economic decline, such as now. And when they are, you can bet that the prosecution will seek a confiscation order.

It is clear that the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules (‘the Rules’) has had a significant impact on criminal litigation.

The prevailing view within the Criminal Justice System is that MDOs who are afflicted with a disorder at the time of the offence and/or at the time of trial, should be dealt with differently to ordinary offences, namely via diversion to the NHS through the Mental Health Act.