header-logo header-logo

20 April 2007
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

R (Gillan) v DPP [2007] EWHC 380, [2007] All ER (D) 185 (Feb)

(a) applications for judicial review of interlocutory rulings by crown court judges where the decision is not one involving trial on indictment should be relatively rare and exceptional;

(b) a crown court judge has jurisdiction to allow a fresh Newton hearing to take place (even though one took place in the magistrates’ court before the defendant was committed for sentence) if satisfied that it is in the interests of fairness and justice to do so. 

However, the judge should not ordinarily allow a defendant to re-open findings of fact determined by a magistrates’ court unless the defendant can point to some significant development or matter, such as important further evidence discovered since the magistrates’ court reached its conclusion on the facts.
 

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll