Regina v Hawkins (Paul): CACD 2 Aug 1996

The defendant sought leave to appeal out of time after a guilty plea.
Held: Leave was not granted despite a subsequent ruling on the Theft Act, which showed the basis of the original plea to have been wrong in law. No injustice had been shown, since the defendant had been convicted of other offences which would stand.
Bingham LCJ: ‘It is plain, as we read the authorities, that there is no inflexible rule on this subject, but the general practice is plainly one which sets its face against the reopening of convictions in such circumstances. Counsel submits – and in our judgment correctly submits – that the practice of the Court has in the past, in this and comparable situations, been to eschew undue technicality and ask whether any substantial injustice has been done.’
Bingham LCJ
Times 06-Aug-1996, Gazette 02-Oct-1996, Times 02-Aug-1996, [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 234
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Mitchell CACD 1977
The court considered the effect of changes in the law after a conviction on applications for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Lane LJ said: ‘This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against conviction. It should be . .

Cited by:
Distinguished.Regina v Cooke CACD 2-Dec-1996
The defendant had been convicted upon his admission, and sentenced a later decision in another case indicated that the basis of his plea might be wrong. He sought permission to apply for leave to appeal out of time.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
CitedSmith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
CitedSmith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
AppliedRegina v Dundon CMAC 18-Mar-2004
The defendant had been convicted under a system of trial later confirmed not to be compliant with the need for a fair trial.
Held: The judge advocate in this trial had been a serving officer. Unless the positive obligation to show an . .
CitedSteele, Whomes and Corry , Regina v CACD 22-Feb-2006
The convictions had been referred back to the Court of Appeal in relation to various grounds, but the s.34 direction was a further ground relied on by the appellants. The Court recognised that the direction was inadequate by reference to the . .
CitedRegina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.86831