header-logo header-logo

17 May 2007
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R v Collins [2007] EWCA Crim 854, [2007] All ER (D) 161 (Apr)

The court thought it “strongly arguable” that the common law right of a jury to stop a case after the close of the prosecution case cannot survive Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights but that it is possible to envisage circumstances in which the jury could be reminded of this right in such a way as not to breach Art 6.

However, the practice of inviting a jury to exercise such a right has been comprehensively disapproved by the Court of Appeal and should be exercised only in the most exceptional circumstances (and certainly not in a multi-handed case of some complexity).

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll