header-logo header-logo

Criminal Litigation

20 April 2010
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Remice v Governor of Belmarsh [2007] All ER (D) 439 (Mar)

The defendant was granted conditional bail.  The prosecution appealed to the Crown Court.  The judge refused bail and remanded the defendant in custody but did not set a return date for the defendant to appear again before the magistrates’ court. 

Held:  although ss 128 and 128A of the 1980 Act do not directly bind the Crown Court, a defendant should enjoy no lesser rights than he would have done had the prosecutor’s appeal not supervened. 

In the instant case, the Crown Court ought to have deployed the provisions of s 128A(2) and considered whether the claimant should have been remanded for more than eight days. If question was decided in the affirmative, he should have been allowed to make representations.
 

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