header-logo header-logo

15 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10, [2008] All ER (D) 199 (Jan)

The court had to consider whether or not an interlocutory appeal under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 58 could be brought where the ruling was as to admissibility of evidence.

HELD Under s 58(8), the Crown is bound to accept that, if an interlocutory appeal under s 58 fails, the defendant must be acquitted. There is no reason why a single ruling should not qualify both as an s 58 ruling in relation to a count on the indictment—assuming the Crown to agree to acquittal if the appeal fails—and also as an evidentiary ruling under s 62 (not yet in force).

Many rulings made by trial judges can properly be described both as relating to counts on the indictment and as being evidentiary; the difference between the two types of interlocutory appeal lies in the s 58(8) condition. Where the judge first excludes evidence which the Crown wants admitted and then, because of its absence, finds that there is no case to answer, the Crown can (provided it complies with s 58(8)) challenge

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll