Regina v Hedworth: CACD 20 Sep 1996

The court allowed amendment of the indictment to reflect the law as demonstrated in Preddy, and at a preparatory hearing application was made to quash the amended indictment on the basis that the charges were not supported by evidence in the depositions or Notices of Further Evidence which had been served. That was refused Counsel for the applicant submitted that once a preparatory hearing begins then all applications to the trial judge form part of it, and any order which he makes involving a question of law can be appealed. Alternatively, if it was necessary to identify a purpose within section 7(1) (for present purposes section 29(2)) then it was possible to do so. The court looked at the earlier cases to which we have referred, and also at Jennings [1994] 98 Cr App R 308 and Maxwell 9th February 1995 unreported, and concluded that counsel’s first submission was wrong.
Held: Evans LJ said: ‘Two conditions must be satisfied before the Court of Appeal can have jurisdiction: first, there must be a issue of law, or evidence, within section 9(3); secondly, the order appealed from must have been made within the ambit of the preparatory hearing, that is to say within the scope of section 7(1).’


Evans LJ


[1996] EWCA Crim 814, [1997] 1 Cr App R 421


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Van Hoogstraten CACD 12-Dec-2003
The prosecution appealed against the refusal of the crown court to remit the case for retrial.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against this ruling because it was not within the ambit of section 29(2) of the 1996 Act. . .
CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
CitedRegina v Claydon; Regina v Regina v Hall; Regina v Costall; Regina v French CACD 13-Jun-2001
The defendants faced substantial trials involving drugs offences. At a preparatory hearing the court made decisions about abuse of process and as to what evidence might be admitted. The prosecutor said there was no right of appeal.
Held: . .
CitedH, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148478