Speechley, R. v

Speechley, R. v

The trial judge's directions on the mental element and mixed motives for misconduct in public office were adequate and not misleading; there was a strong case to answer at the close of the prosecution case; the judge was correct to prevent defence counsel from inviting the jury to acquit; the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness and dishonesty of the misconduct, but the costs order was excessive and reduced to £10,000.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: William James Speechley; Respondent: The Crown; Interested Party: Interested Party
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed except for reduction of costs order.
Legal Topics
Misconduct in Public Office, Sentencing, Declaration of Interest, Dishonesty, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Public Law Misconduct in Public Office Sentencing Declaration of Interest Dishonesty Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

William James Speechley

Appellant/defendant

The Crown

Respondent

Interested Party

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the mental element for misconduct in public office and mixed motives
  2. 2 Whether there was a case to answer at the close of the prosecution case
  3. 3 Whether defence counsel could remind the jury of their common law right to acquit after the prosecution case

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's directions on the mental element and mixed motives for misconduct in public office were adequate and not misleading; there was a strong case to answer at the close of the prosecution case; the judge was correct to prevent defence counsel from inviting the jury to acquit; the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness and dishonesty of the misconduct, but the costs order was excessive and reduced to £10,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed except for reduction of costs order.

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Sentence of 18 months' imprisonment upheld