The Growing Prevalence of Prevalence - 25/05/16

It's a case law episode for this Bite, which you can listen to right here.

First, R v Bondzie.  Ever wondered why the Crown has taken to serving a statement that just tells you that drug dealing is bad?  Here's why they do it; what effect it could have on sentence; what they need to do to give it an effect and why their efforts to date have been generally pointless and probably damaging to their own aims.

Then two quickies: R v Bala, which upholds marriage in all its forms and R v Hussain, in which the Court of Appeal confirms that you can't second-guess a jury.

The Law Commission has reported on its sentencing code project.  If you want to read more you can do so here.

Let us know whether you prefer the show like this or if you'd prefer to go back to listening to us drinking wine and eating cake.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Done Over By Do-Overs? - 17/04/16

In this week's show, we take a look at what happens when juries cannot reach a verdict. Take a listen right here. 

Many people, especially defendants, are quite horrified when they find out that the prosecution can decide whether it wants to have not just a second attempt but, sometimes, a third attempt!

In this episode, we consider what the "sometimes" above actually means. 

Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

S11E03 - Dangerously Out Of Control

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.

The Court of Appeal recently took the opportunity to set straight a peculiarity in the law that has existed since 1991.  Most criminal lawyers will have dealt with the scenario with which the court was concerned and the Court of Appeal have used their powers of statutory interpretation to fix what most would see as a terribly unfair and poorly-drafted bit of legislation: the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It had appeared, until recently, that s.3(1) of the 1991 Act had created an offence whereby you could go to prison for up to two years even if you did nothing wrong.  It is unlikely that this case will be overturned any time soon as it needed fixing but see what you think about it.

The case and some other reading material are below.

Then we move on to our second case of the week; in fact, it's one of Mr Knight's.

The appeal against sentence of Connor Martin was described as an exceptional case by the Court of Appeal because it dealt with the unusual scenario of a Crown Court Judge giving an express indication of what sentence would be imposed after a Newton hearing and then imposing a higher sentence.  The case was regarding legitimate expectation and gives the strongest indication that judges should never give such indications prior to the decision being taken to hold a Newton hearing.  

We do have a quick look at the QASA judicial review decision of the High Court but it contained few surprises.  We promised in the show that we would give you a link to a good set of reactions to the decision.  It is in the links below.

Links

A very important precedent has been set in Dangerous Dogs cases.  The strict liability offence of having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place has just had a much-needed caveat added to it by the Court of Appeal.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2396.html

(http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/animals-regina-v-robinson-pierre)

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264113/Symieon-Robinson-Pierre-Dog-owner-sentenced-22-months-failing-stop-dog-mauling-police-officers.html)

R v Martin [2013] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2565.html

Reactions to QASA: http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/qasa-criminal-barristers-react-to-rejected-challenge/