header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll