QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
28 January 2020
The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time limit specified in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.111 to state a case following an individual’s conviction in the magistrates’ court but before they were sentenced in the Crown Court. The time limit began on the day of an offender’s conviction; the reference in s.111(3) to it beginning the day that an offender was sentenced meant where the magistrates’ court had retained the matter for sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, William Davis J, Johnson J)
12 December 2019
On an ordinary reading of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.1(1), an appellate court had jurisdiction to entertain a defendant’s appeal against conviction on one count on an indictment, even though it had previously determined, on its merits, an appeal by the defendant against a conviction on another count on the same indictment. However, that jurisdiction was to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, Simler LJ)
31 October 2019
The High Court’s decision refusing permission to apply for judicial review in proceedings relating to a murder conviction was “a judgment…in a criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1)(a), restricting the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no basis for concluding that the denial of a right of appeal in those circumstances amounted to an unjustified denial of the appellant’s right of access to justice.
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Cutts J, Sir Roderick Evans)
17 October 2019
A sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment was just and proportionate following guilty pleas to 13 historic offences of indecent assault of a girl under 16 years where the victims were the offender’s step-daughter and adopted daughter who had been abused in their beds at night.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Warby J, Edis J)
17 September 2019
A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Edis J, Butcher J)
24 July 2019
A judge had erred in making a wasted costs order against a solicitor who had made a request to the court for information raised in her former client’s contempt of court proceedings, on the basis that it might assist in proceedings contemplated by a new client. In making her request, the solicitor was not acting on behalf of a party to criminal proceedings, and such requests could not be regarded as initiating “criminal proceedings”.
CA (NI) (Stephens LJ, Deeny LJ, Treacy LJ)
7 June 2019
It was not appropriate to give media organisations leave to appeal against reporting restriction orders imposed in relation to the trial of a mentally disordered offender.
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Irwin LJ)
21 May 2019
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against a refusal of permission to apply for judicial review; by reason of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal because the decision under challenge was in a criminal cause or matter. The court made general observations with regard to appeals from judgments in criminal causes or matters.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Goose J, Judge Kinch QC)
12 April 2019
Although a 50-month term of imprisonment imposed on an offender who had beaten and threatened to kill his girlfriend, threatened to kill her mother, assaulted a 14-year-old boy, had a knife and knuckleduster in his possession, and had threatened to petrol bomb and pour boiling water over police officers was lenient, the Court of Appeal, if sentencing him, would have imposed a sentence one year longer, and so the difference was not such as to make the sentence unduly lenient or justify the court’s intervention.
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Soole J, Judge Wall QC)
21 February 2019
Where the High Court had wrongly made a non-molestation order, having no power to do so under the Family Law Act 1996, the appropriate remedy for an individual who had been convicted of breaching the order under s.42A was to apply to set aside the order rather than to appeal against his convictions. The High Court was a court of unlimited jurisdiction and the non-molestation order had to be obeyed unless and until it was set aside.