“The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has amended the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 and the changes will come into force on 5 October 2009.”
Ministry of Justice, 6th August 2009
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Regina v Erskine; Regina v Williams
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Firm measures were required immediately to ensure that appeals against conviction and sentence could be heard without an excessive citation of earlier, largely factual decisions which did no more than illustrate or restate a principle.”
The Times, 22nd July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Court of Appeal
“Where the Court of Appeal was determining whether it was in the interests of justice for an acquittal to be quashed on an application by the Crown, the factors specified in section 79(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were not exhaustive.”
The Times, 9th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R v T; R v B; R v C; R v H [2009] EWCA Crim 1035; [2009] WLR (D) 19
“A criminal trial without a jury did not contravene a defendant’s right to a fair trial where there was a real danger of jury tampering and proposed measures to prevent such interference did not sufficiently address the extent of the risk. On an application by the prosecution for a trial to be conducted without a jury in such circumstances the evidence should be disclosed to the fullest extent possible, but there would be cases where the evidence to demonstrate the risk of jury tampering would be so sensitive that it could only be addressed under public immunity interest principles and it would be contrary to the legislative purpose to make an order for disclosure which would, in effect, bring the prosecution to an end and enable those who had been involved in jury tampering to derail the trial.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Lord Chief Justice has handed down Amendment No. 22 to the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction. It has three main parts. Primarily, the amendments set out the different bases on which a defendant may plead guilty. Secondly, minor changes are made to paragraph III.28 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction regarding the Victim Personal Statement scheme. Thirdly, it contains various forms for use with the Criminal Procedure Rules and when appealing to and from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 20th May 2009
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Amended provisions concerning the practice in criminal proceedings in relation to victim personal statements, pleas of guilty in the crown court and forms would come into force with immediate effect.”
The Times, May 19th 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Lord Judge CJ, sitting in the Supreme Court, handed down an amendment to Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) [2002] 1 WLR 2870, relating to victim personal statements, pleas of guilty in the Crown Court and forms.”
WLR Daily, 15th May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has made amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which will come into force on 6 April 2009.”
Ministry of Justice, 30th March 2009
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“A guide to changes to the Criminal Procedure Rules between March 2006 and October 2008.”
Ministry of Justice, 10th March 2009
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Court of Appeal
“The requirement in section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that the court’s permission had to be obtained before a convicted offender could bring civil proceedings for trespass to the person was procedural and directory. Where such proceedings were brought without permission, the defect could be cured on application to the court.”
The Times,23rd February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 18; WLR (D) 23
“The requirement of s 329(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that the court’s permission be obtained to bring civil proceedings for trespass to the person where the claimant had been convicted of an imprisonable offence committed on the same occasion as the alleged tort, was procedural and directory, and therefore proceedings brought without such permission were not void but could be cured on application to the court.”
WLR Daily, 26th January 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Burns v HM Advocate [2008] UKPC 63; [2008] WLR (D) 392
“Where a defendant, who was resident in Scotland, was interviewed in England by police officers who told him that there was sufficient evidence on which to charge him with offences relating to child pornography and that they would recommend such a course, the reasonable time requirement to which he was entitled under art 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, was to be calculated from the date of that interview and not from the later date on which the Lord Advocate, as the competent authority in Scotland, required the defendant to answer charges on which he was indicted to stand trial in Scotland.”
WLR Daily, 17th December 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“Where the clerk of a crown court went wrong when he was taking the vote of the jury, it was better for counsel to interrupt and ask the clerk to start again, to avoid unnecessary excursions to the Court of Appeal.”
The Times, 14th November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee is seeking views on a proposal to consolidate and revise the rules about costs.”
Ministry of Justice, 22nd October 2008
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Court of Appeal
“Where one of several defendants in the same criminal proceedings became mentally unfit to stand trial before a jury had been empanelled, there was nothing in principle to prevent the jury subsequently hearing the trial of all the defendants, although in the case of the unfit defendant the jury would now be looking only to whether he had committed the actus reus of the relevant offence.”
The Times, 8th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has made amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which will come into force from today (6 October 2008).”
Ministry of Justice, 6th October 2008
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“On an application by the prosecution for leave to appeal from a ruling of a trial judge in the crown court, the Court of Appeal should not simply consider whether the appeal had a realistic prospect of success because even if the judge’s ruling was wrong it would only be if it were in the interests of justice that the trial should be resumed or started afresh.”
The Times, 3rd October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Regina v Al-Ali; [2008] WLR (D) 302
“When granting leave to a prosecutor to appeal from a ruling of a trial judge in the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) should look rather more widely at the interests of justice than simply considering whether the appeal had a realistic prospect of success because even if the judge’s ruling were held to be wrong it would only be if it were in the interests of justice that an order should be made to resume the trial or to start a fresh trial.”
WLR Daily, 23rd September 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R v B and others: [2008] WLR (D) 296
“Where one of several defendants in the same criminal proceedings became unfit to stand trial before a jury had been empanelled there was nothing in principle to prevent a single empanelled jury subsequently proceeding to hear the trial of all the defendants, although in the case of the unfit defendant the jury would now be looking to the question whether he had committed the actus reus of the relevant offence.”
WLR Daily, 1st September 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“A trial judge could not assent to an application of no case to answer nor enter a verdict of not guilty before the close of the prosecution evidence without the clear consent of all the parties.”
The Times, 25th August 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024