Search Results for: Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)

Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 20 Jan 1993

MEP’s are susceptible to prosecution. The National courts do have jurisdiction. Citations: Gazette 20-Jan-1993 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions HL 7-May-1993 A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for … Continue reading Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 20 Jan 1993

Regina v Harrow Crown Court Ex Perkins; Regina v Cardiff Crown Court Ex Parte M (A Minor): QBD 28 Apr 1998

Decision in Crown Court regarding costs or other element of a matter which was formulated in the indictment is a matter relating to the trial and was not subject to judicial review. Citations: Times 28-Apr-1998 Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3) Judicial Review Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86816

Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams: HL 18 Sep 1996

A decision at committal to return an accused for trial is susceptible to judicial review where committal was based solely on inadmissible evidence or was based on evidence not reasonably capable of supporting it. The committal was quashed.The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review proceedings jurisdiction to quash a … Continue reading Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams: HL 18 Sep 1996

Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government: HL 1943

A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a Divisional Court. The Court of Appeal held that they had no jurisdiction to entertain … Continue reading Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government: HL 1943

C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 17 Mar 1995

The House considered whether the long established rule of the criminal law presuming that a child did not have a guilty mind should be set aside. Held: Doli incapax, the presumption of a child’s lack of mens rea, is still effective and good law, but a child is not capable at law without the requisite … Continue reading C (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 17 Mar 1995