Legal Developments 2022

Legal Developments 2022


Covid-19 Legislation (England)

For the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022 No.317); in force from14.00 a.m. on 18th March 2022 ; see [Link]

[References to earlier covid-19 Statutory Instruments (which are now mainly of historic interest) have been removed from these pages] 

Other Legislation (England and Wales)

For the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (Commencement No. 2 and Saving Provision) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022 No.418) see [Link].  This SI has been long awaited and brings into force – from 6 April 2022 – provision concerning the supply etc of certain corrosive products and corrosive substances, and other provisions relating to bladed articles and other offensive weapons.   See also the Home Office Statutory Guidance (April 22) in relation to this Act [Link]

For the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022 (SI 2022 No.322) see [Link].  The Order reclassifies 1,4-Butanediol (1,4-BD), Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and 4-Hydroxy-nbutyric acid (GHB) from Class C to Class B drugs for the purposes of control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971



Chang, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 463 [Link]

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has held that section 54(3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 exempts a police officer from the provisions of section 5 of the 1968 Act [prohibited weapons and prohibited ammunition] only if the officer is acting officially as such at the relevant time.  That would be a question of fact. It would not necessarily be coincident with the concept of being “on duty”.  


Keal, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 341 [Link]

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has held that “In order to establish the defence of insanity within the M’Naghten Rules on the ground of not knowing the act was ‘wrong’, the defendant must establish both that (a) he did not know that his act was unlawful (i.e. contrary to law) and (b) he did not know that his act was ‘morally’ wrong (also expressed as wrong “by the standards of ordinary people”). In our judgment, “wrong” means both against the law and wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. Strictly a jury must be satisfied that the defendant did not know that what he was doing was against the law nor wrong by the standards of reasonable ordinary people. In practice how the jury is directed on this issue will depend on the facts and issues in the particular case” (per Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ., at [41]).

Field, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 316 [Link]

In this unusual case, which is well worth reading, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) said that “practitioners must clearly understand that the jurisdiction conferred by Crim PR 36.15 [application to the the CACD to reopen a decision that determined an appeal or reference] is extremely limited and that the jurisdiction can indeed only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. Parties may disagree, even profoundly disagree, with the reasoning and conclusion of an appellate decision. But such disagreement gives no basis whatsoever for an application under this Rule. It is inappropriate and wrong to make such an application, with the ultimate aim of getting another constitution of the court to re-consider the merits of an appeal, by means of claims of procedural unfairness or of bias which have no sustainable basis. To do so will be an abuse of process. The court will be vigilant to ensure that applications under the Rule will be confined to those narrow and exceptional circumstances where the Rule is properly to be invoked” (per Dame Victoria Sharp, P, at [75].