header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 May 2025 / Dr Graham Zellick CBE KC FAcSS
Issue: 8114 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal
printer mail-detail

The test for referral

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
217357
Professor Graham Zellick KC, the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s second chairman, argues that the Law Commission’s proposal is wrong

From almost my first day as chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in 2003 and throughout my five years in post, I found myself having to defend the statutory test for referral of a case to the relevant appeal court. There was much wrong with the CCRC in those days, to which I put my shoulder, but the referral test was not among the problems, then or now.

The criticisms, however, have persisted, culminating in the Law Commission’s provisional view in its consultation paper on Criminal Appeals (CP 268, 27 February 2025, Chap 11) that it should be replaced, reflecting the views of all but one of the 35 respondents to their earlier issues paper. Only the Crown Prosecution Service (unlikely to want to see any relaxation in the threshold for referral) pronounced the test satisfactory.

The test, found in s 13(1) of the Criminal Appeal

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: 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
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
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
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
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
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
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
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll