header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 February 2008 / Peter Ferguson KC
Issue: 7309 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Playing with fire

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll