Legal Developments 2021

Legal Developments 2021


Covid-19 Legislation (England)

For the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 585; in force from 17 May 2021), see [Link]

For the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 582), see [Link].

For the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021  (SI 2021 No. 364), see [Link].

For the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 164), see [Link].

For the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No.166, see [Link].

See the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 150) [Link] in force from 4.00 a.m. on 15th February 2021. 

See the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Pre-Departure Testing and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 38) and laid before Parliament at 2.00 p.m. on 14th January 2021 [Link]. 

See the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 47) laid before Parliament on the 15th January 2021 [Link].

See the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 49) coming into force at different times between the 16th January 2021 and the 18th January 2021 [Link].

Other Legislation (England and Wales)

For the Antique Firearms Regulations 2021 (SI 2021 No. 215), see [Link].

For the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, see [Link]

For the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021, see [Link]

For the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, see [Link]

For the Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021, see [Link]


 R v Lanning & Camille [2021] EWCA Crim 450 [Link]

This is an interesting decision, particularly in the case of Camille (who was convicted of manslaughter) insofar as it touches upon the principle of an “overwhelming supervening act” (see  R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8; R v Tas [2018] EWCA Crim 2603; R v Harper [2019] EWCA Crim 343).  The decision, useful as it is, does however, leave a number of issues concerning the application of this principle, unanswered.  

Collins v The DPP [2021] EWHC 634 (Admin) [Link]

The Divisional Court answered in the negative the question posed by the Court below: “”Was I wrong in law, in declining to endorse the warrant of commitment to prison, in respect of [JKC] for non-payment of his confiscation order, that any term of imprisonment served by a person in default of payment of a confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit should reduce the term of imprisonment to be served by [JKC] for his default of payment?”

London Borough of Barnet v Kamyab [2021] EWCA Crim 543 [Link]

This is an important decision that exposes what seems to be a drafting weakness in the wording of s.31 POCA [prosecutor’s appeal in respect of a confiscation order made by the Crown Court].  The literal terms of POCA 32(1), in clear contrast to s. 32(2), currently contains no explicit power to remit to the Crown Court a confiscation order that was incorrectly made (as opposed to a case where the Crown Court failed or declined to make a confiscation order).  The powers of the CACD under s.32(1) are currently limited to confirming, quashing or varying the confiscation order.  The Court, in this case, remarked that “disposing of confiscation proceedings on a preliminary issue of law is, as the powers of this court currently stand, a dangerous course and one which we do not expect to see again”. It is respectfully submitted that the scope and purpose of POCA s.8(1) and (2), ought not to be overstated given that those subsections apply to ‘criminal lifestyle’ cases as well as to cases of ‘particular criminal conduct’ .  

R v Court [2021] EWCA Crim 242 [Link]

This is a confiscation case [under Pt 2 POCA 2002] with an extraordinary and unfortunate history but which also carries a number of ‘object lessons’. 

R v Patel [2021] EWCA Crim 231 [Link]

This is an important sentencing decision in relation to the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020 that came into force on 1 April 2020: “It changes, for certain offenders sentenced to a fixed-term custodial sentence, the point at which the offender is entitled to release. Before the 2020 Order came into force, such an offender was entitled to release once one half of the sentence had been served. The 2020 Order changes that to the two-thirds point. So, where the 2020 Order applies, an offender sentenced to a 12 year term is entitled to release at the 8 year point, rather than the 6 year point. The 2020 Order applies to sentences passed on or after 1 April 2020, even if the offence was committed before 1 April 2020, and even if the offender was convicted before that date. That means that the length of time that an offender spends in custody will depend on whether they happen to be sentenced before or after 1 April 2020” (per Dame Victoria Sharp P [QBD], at [1]).  NOTE that the Court merely took “12 years” as an example.  Where the sentence imposed by the sentencer is for a term of seven years’  imprisonment or more, and is imposed for a “relevant violent or sexual offence”, the proportion of that sentence that must be served will be two thirds of the sentence.  A “relevant violent or sexual offence” means an offence listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for which a sentence of life imprisonment may be imposed. 

R v Wainwright [2021] EWCA Crim 122 [Link]

The case considers the relationship between section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and R v Lucas [1981] Q.B. 720. 

R v Thomasson [2021] EWCA Crim 114 [Link]

An important decision that confirms that e-fit pictures constitute hearsay evidence within the meaning, and for the purposes of, the Criminal Justice Act 2003.