header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

15 November 2007
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (Morsby) v Tower Bridge Magistrates’ Court [2007] All ER (D) 464 (Oct)

The defendant was remanded in custody and so failed to attend his trial for another offence, of which he was convicted in his absence. He applied under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s 142(1) to rescind his conviction and re-open the trial.

HELD the magistrates’ court had placed substantially too much weight on the defendant’s failure to communicate with the court from prison. The interests of justice clearly required the rescission of the claimant’s conviction and a re-trial in his presence.

Issue: 7297 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll