Reopening final determinations of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division The Court of Appeal Criminal Division has an inherent jurisdiction in rare cases to reopen a previous decision determining appeal proceedings (R v Yasain). In Yasain, the court noted that the Court of Appeal Civil Division exercised an implicit power to reopen a concluded appeal and assumed a similar implicit power for the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. By way of example, in R v Powell, the court exercised the Yasain jurisdiction in respect of a confiscation order appeal in circumstances where all the parties agreed that the realisable assets had been miscalculated and had tried (unsuccessfully) to rectify it through means of a certificate of inadequacy. In that case, the Court of Appeal had come to the view that 'enough time, effort and previous resources have already been spent on getting this error corrected'. In R v Hockey, another confiscation case, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the decision in Powell should not be misunderstood and that the Yasain

It is an offence to commit an attempt to commit any indictable offence other than conspiracy, aiding and abetting an offence or assisting offenders or accepting/agreeing to accept consideration for not disclosing information about a relevant offence.

Defined in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), s 340 as conduct which constitutes a criminal offence in any part of the UK or would do so if it occurred there.

In summarising the law of contempt of court, the Court of Appeal has stated: ‘The law of contempt exists to protect the course of proceedings from interference, to safeguard the fairness and integrity of proceedings and to ensure that orders of the court are obeyed. It comes in many forms, both statutory and under the common law.’ There are two main forms of contempt: criminal and civil. Civil contempt typically involves disobedience to a court order, for example breach of a restraint order. For information on civil contempt of court, see: Contempt and committal—overview. For guidance on the approach to be taken in sentencing for contempt by the civil courts, where a criminal court has sentenced a defendant for broadly similar matters, see Corbiere Ltd v Xu and News Analysis: The interplay in sentencing between twinned criminal and contempt of court proceedings. See also Practice Note: Civil contempt proceedings—illustrative decisions. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981) provides for strict liability contempt or indirect contempt of the kind committed

IP analysis: On 17 April 2025, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down a judgment upholding the criminal convictions of Majid (A1) and Muhammad (A2) Iqbal for conspiracy to infringe trade marks and designs, reinforcing the seriousness with which UK courts treat IP crimes. The ruling has sparked important discussion around the legal thresholds for establishing criminal conspiracy in trade mark and design infringement cases. The judgment affirms the core elements required for a conspiracy conviction: (1) an agreement between two or more individuals, and (2) an intention to commit a criminal offence. Drawing on R v Saik [2006], the court reiterated that the essential requirement is the conspirator’s intention to participate in an agreement to carry out unlawful conduct, even if at the point the agreement is made, the conspirators could not know that the goods would be considered infringing items. This case solidifies the applicability of these principles within the framework of trade mark and design-related offences. Written by Saher Amin, trainee solicitor, and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

It is an offence intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage property belonging to another without lawful excuse.

General Simple criminal damage is triable either way unless the value of the alleged damage is £5,000 or less, in which case the offence will be treated as if it were triable only summarily. Where the damage is caused by fire or the racially aggravated form of the offence is charged, then even if the value of the damage is less than £5,000 it will be triable either way. Equally, where the defendant is charged with two or more offences of the same or similar character, and the total value exceeds £5,000, the offence will be triable either way. Where the value of the damage is over £5,000, criminal damage is typically tried summarily, unless it appears to the court that one of the following aggravating features are present: • deliberate fire-raising • the offence was committed by a group • the damage is of high value, or • the offence has clear racial motivation, and the court's sentencing powers are insufficient The Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines suggest that the Crown Court may be the appropriate venue

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has sentenced convicted fraudster, David Hardie, at Southwark Crown Court for breaching an order which required him to notify the SFO of any name changes. David Hardie has changed his name three times in the last five years. This is the first time the SFO has prosecuted an individual for a Serious Crime Prevention Order.

This Practice Note is concerned with one of the three criminal offences created under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (CJA 1993), that is the offence of disclosing inside information to another person, other than in the proper performance of their employment or duties (referred to as the ‘disclosing information offence’). For general information on criminal insider dealing including who is an insider and what constitutes inside information and an inside source, see Practice Note: Insider dealing—the criminal offence. How can a person commit the disclosing (inside) information offence? The disclosing information offence is committed where a person discloses inside information to another person which is not in the course of the proper conduct of their employment, position or role. A person must know that the information is inside information and that it is from an inside source. See Practice Note: Insider dealing—the criminal

This Practice Note is concerned with one of the three criminal offences created under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (CJA 1993), that is encouraging another person to deal in such securities (whether or not the other person knows they are 'price-affected'), knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the dealing would take place. For general information on criminal insider dealing including the territorial scope of the offence, who is an insider and what constitutes inside information and an inside source, see Practice Note: Insider dealing—the criminal offence. How can a person commit the offence of encouraging insider dealing? A person would be guilty of the offence of encouraging insider dealing if, while in possession of inside information, they encourage another person to deal in securities that are price-affected securities in relation to the information. The person encouraging the action must know or have reasonable cause to believe that the dealing would take place and the dealing must relate to a purchase or sale which occurs on a regulated market, or that

Criminal investigation of cryptoassets The decentralised nature of (many) cryptoassets means that identifying the holders of them, and the ability to restrict dealing with them, at any given time, is more limited than compared to other assets. In the UK and Europe, efforts to combat this have been taken, such as bringing cryptoasset exchange providers and custodian wallet providers (cryptoasset businesses) within the scope of anti-money laundering regimes (see Practice Note: Offences under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017)). The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2023, SI 2023/612 (the Cryptoassets Promotion Order) has also extended the restrictions on financial promotions under section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to include qualifying cryptoassets (see Practice Note: Application of the UK financial promotion regime to cryptoassets—The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2023). As of 26 April 2024, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) has been formally amended by the Economic Crime and Corporate

Law360, London: Retired judge Brian Leveson told the Justice Committee on 11 November 2025 that criminal law must become more attractive for legal professionals if it is to retain the talent and experience needed within the justice system.