Regina 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. That may be satisfactory because it seemed to be common ground that if an attempt had been made to quash the indictment at arraignment (by means of a request for particulars followed by an application to quash), or if such an attempt had been made after the jury was empanelled, in neither instance would the Crown have any right of appeal. The court was unhappy with this conclusion, but could not avoid it. It could not order a retrial.
Mr Justice Forbes Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Curtis
[2003] EWCA 3642 Crim, Times 24-Dec-2003
Bailii
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Gunawardena CACD 1990
At the preparatory hearing the defendants sought an order that the trial be stayed as an abuse of process on the grounds of unjustifiable delay. Held : It was refused. ‘In our judgment the words of sections 7, 8 and 9 themselves plainly demonstrate . .
CitedRegina v Moore CACD 5-Feb-1991
The court considered whether to quash a count of theft: ‘The fact that a possible incidental effect of the purposes of the application does find itself within those sub-provisions (a) to (d) is not one of the purposes of those provisions. It is the . .
CitedRegina v Peter John Alan Hedworth CACD 20-Sep-1996
reg_pjahedworthCACD1996
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 . .
CitedRegina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .

Cited by:
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 March 2021; Ref: scu.188711