header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 February 2023 / Dr Charanjit Singh
Issue: 8014 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Correcting mistakes in the magistrates’ courts

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
112061
To what extent has the Court of Appeal clarified the power of the magistrates’ court to reopen cases in order to rectify mistakes? Dr Charanjit Singh reports
  • Examines R (on the application of Simon Williamson) v City of Westminster, in which the Court of Appeal has sought to define the application of s 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 (MCA 1980).
  • Presents a practical examination of case law and explores the implications for defendants’ seeking to reopen their cases following a guilty plea and sentencing.
  • Notes the current position of the law under s 142, MCA 1980.

Few would argue against the notion that some of the systemic safeguards designed to mitigate miscarriages of justice, prevent the abuse of due process, and assure that convictions of the guilty are beyond reasonable doubt (Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462) are some of the most important aspects of British criminal justice.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Williamson)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll