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: 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