header-logo header-logo

15 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10, [2008] All ER (D) 199 (Jan)

The court had to consider whether or not an interlocutory appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 58 could be brought where the ruling was as to admissibility of evidence.

HELD Under s 58(8), the Crown is bound to accept that, if an interlocutory appeal under s 58 fails, the defendant must be acquitted. There is no reason why a single ruling should not qualify both as an s 58 ruling in relation to a count on the indictment—assuming the Crown to agree to acquittal if the appeal fails—and also as an evidentiary ruling under s 62 (not yet in force).

Many rulings made by trial judges can properly be described both as relating to counts on the indictment and as being evidentiary; the difference between the two types of interlocutory appeal lies in the s 58(8) condition. Where the judge first excludes evidence which the Crown wants admitted and then, because of its absence, finds that there is no case to answer,

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll