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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll