header-logo header-logo

21 February 2008 / Peter Ferguson KC
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Playing with fire

The government should think again about tampering with the law on technicalities and unsafe convictions, says Peter Ferguson QC

Nearly 18 months ago the government published a brief consultation paper on how it should amend the law to prevent defendants getting their convictions quashed on grounds which did not call into question their guilt (Quashing Convictions, September 2006). I expressed some concern at the government’s paper, which sought views not on the desirability of the objective but merely on the means of achieving it (see 156 NLJ 7245, pp 1582–84). After a short consultation period the Ministry of Justice, in June 2007, introduced the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which was carried over into the next session. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appeals (see 157 NLJ 7282, p 1039). There are three clauses which merit closer examination.

 

CLAUSE 42

Clause 42 of the Bill, in its present form now before the House of Lords, amends the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (CAA 1968),

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll