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: 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