header-logo header-logo

Criminal Litigation

20 April 2007
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (Gillan) v DPP [2007] EWHC 380, [2007] All ER (D) 185 (Feb)

(a) applications for judicial review of interlocutory rulings by crown court judges where the decision is not one involving trial on indictment should be relatively rare and exceptional;

(b) a crown court judge has jurisdiction to allow a fresh Newton hearing to take place (even though one took place in the magistrates’ court before the defendant was committed for sentence) if satisfied that it is in the interests of fairness and justice to do so. 

However, the judge should not ordinarily allow a defendant to re-open findings of fact determined by a magistrates’ court unless the defendant can point to some significant development or matter, such as important further evidence discovered since the magistrates’ court reached its conclusion on the facts.
 

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll