3 Raymond Buildings
2 Experts
10 Contributions by 3 Raymond Buildings Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note examines the care worker offences introduced by sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). These offences have applied since 13 April 2015.
Prevention of ill-treatment or neglect regime
CJCA 2015 added two offences to the suite of mechanisms aimed at safeguarding vulnerable people from wilful neglect and ill-treatment by those, whether individuals or organisations, responsible for their care. The other principal measures are:
section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA 1933)
section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983)
section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005)
CYPA 1933, s 1 safeguards children and young persons from neglect or ill-treatment by any person with ‘responsibility’ for them, chiefly parents.
MeHA 1983, s 127 makes it an offence for hospital and care home staff or managers to
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Status of a confiscation order
Strictly speaking, a confiscation order requires the offender to pay a sum to the state, reflecting the benefit obtained through the defendant’s offending. Its principal aim is restorative, though it includes punitive features.
There are two phases to confiscation proceedings:
the court first makes the confiscation order; and
its enforcement is then secured.
Once imposed, the order operates as a statutory debt and, for certain purposes, is treated in the same way as a fine. Collection and enforcement are carried out by the specified magistrates’ court or, if none is named, by the committing magistrates’ court. The order will also include a default term to be served if payment is not made. See Practice Note: Default term in confiscation. A confiscation order is commonly described as an order in personam rather than in rem, and it does not affect
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Inquests
An inquest is an inquisitorial, non-adversarial procedure in which there are no ‘parties’; rather, individuals or organisations with an interest are notified about the investigation and are permitted to play a role. They are formally described as ‘properly interested persons’, often referred to as IPs (interested persons). The purpose of an inquest is to determine four statutory questions: who died, when they died, where they died, and how the death occurred. In the majority of inquests, it is the ‘how’ question that proves the most contentious issue. This note sets out some of the principal issues that can arise when preparing for an inquest. Useful guidance on approach to inquests is contained in the Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench (the Bench Guidance). The Bench Guidance is intended to be a ‘live’ document, subject to review and revision. It is said to be a
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note outlines the law concerning criminal recklessness.
The subjective test for recklessness
Certain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove mens rea through ‘recklessness’. Put simply, recklessness is where the accused takes an unjustified risk that results in unlawful harm or damage.
The House of Lords in R v G reaffirmed the subjective approach to recklessness. Before R v G, two distinct tests were used, depending on the offence charged:
Subjective recklessness from R v Cunningham: the prosecution had to establish that the accused personally foresaw the risk.
Objective recklessness from R v Caldwell: the prosecution only needed to show that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person, without proving the accused themselves foresaw it.
In R v G, the House of Lords concluded that the objective test could operate unfairly where a defendant did not foresee the
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note discusses the two ‘failure to prevent’ corporate criminal offences created by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017):
CFA 2017, s 45 establishes the offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of a UK tax evasion offence(s) (UK tax evasion facilitation offence)
CFA 2017, s 46 establishes the offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of a foreign tax evasion offence(s) (foreign tax evasion facilitation offence)
Both offences impose strict liability, with a ‘reasonable procedures’ defence for those able to show they maintained reasonable procedures designed to prevent facilitation of the underlying tax evasion offences.
This Practice Note explains the components of each offence and the defences introduced by the CFA 2017.
The offences sit within a broader suite of measures aimed at combating tax evasion and its facilitation, both in the UK and worldwide. They are
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
The offence of contravening or failing to comply with the food hygiene requirements—Regulation 19(1)
Pursuant to the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 (FSH(E)R 2013), SI 2013/2996, reg 19 provides that any person who breaches or does not comply with the specified EU provisions commits an offence. Those specified provisions are set out in FSH(E)R 2013, SI 2013/2996, Sch 2 (as amended by the General Food Law (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations, SI 2019/641) and chiefly relate to:
Assimilated Regulation (EC) 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law (the Assimilated Food Safety Regulation);
Assimilated Regulation (EC) 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (Assimilated Food Hygiene Regulation);
Assimilated Regulation (EC) 853/2004 of the
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note sets out and clarifies the case management powers of the magistrates’ courts when handling summary-only matters or either-way cases that are before the magistrates’ courts in the ordinary course.
The overriding objective
In line with the overriding objective, courts must actively manage proceedings so that they are dealt with justly, efficiently and with expedition, avoiding unnecessary delay. In effect, each case requires robust, proactive oversight by the court. In addition, the prosecution and the defence must assist the court to make sure their case progresses as efficiently as possible at every stage.
Case management in the magistrates’ court
Case management in the magistrates’ court is governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, Pt 3, together with the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 (CPD). Criminal lawyers should also ensure they are familiar with the requirements of the Better Case
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note examines the powers contained in sections 339ZH–339ZK of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), pursuant to which the National Crime Agency (NCA) can obtain information orders against any person in the regulated sector who has filed a suspicious activity report (SAR). For wider guidance on SARs in general, see the Practice Notes: Authorised disclosure, protected disclosure and appropriate consent, and Reporting suspicions of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Background
Information orders were introduced for both legal and practical reasons. Within its action plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance, the government initially proposed legislation granting the NCA authority to require reporters to supply SAR-related information where necessary to meet the requirements of The Fourth Money Laundering Directive 2015/849/EU (MLD4). Following lengthy and noteworthy negotiations, the Council of the EU (the Council) formally adopted MLD4 in May 2015. All Member States were
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
Practice Note
This Practice Note considers those elements of the Sentencing Council’s offence‑specific guidelines that are relied upon by the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts in England and Wales when imposing sentence upon individuals for food safety and food hygiene offences. By virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) (the Sentencing Code), courts are required to apply Sentencing Council guidelines when sentencing an offender unless satisfied that doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. The Sentencing Council has issued offence‑specific guidelines for food safety and hygiene offences. Distinct guidelines govern the sentencing of organisations for such offences, see Practice Note: Sentencing organisations for food safety and food hygiene offences. The Sentencing Council also produces a broad range of overarching guidelines, which ought to be taken into account for all sentencing exercises by the courts, see Practice Note:
Corporate Crime
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
This Practice Note sets out the Sentencing Council’s offence-specific guideline employed by magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts in England and Wales when determining sentences for organisations convicted of food safety and food hygiene offences. Under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) (the Sentencing Code), judges are required to apply Sentencing Council guidelines when passing sentence unless they are satisfied that following them would run counter to the interests of justice. For guidance on sentencing individuals for equivalent offences, consult Practice Note: Sentencing individuals for food safety and food hygiene offences. The Sentencing Council also issues a suite of overarching guidelines that should inform every sentencing exercise, see Practice Note: Sentences imposed following conviction. Notably, the General guideline—overarching principles (the General guideline) is intended to operate alongside offence-specific guidance and addresses seriousness while offering fuller
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
