The Court was asked as to the powers of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to re-open an appeal to correct an error which is said to have caused real injustice in that the error led to the quashing of a sentence lawfully imposed in the Crown Court. The court had quashed a conviction based upon a supposed error in the entry of the judgment, but the court had since discoved that the error lay only in the court recorder’s transcription.
Held: The powers of the Division are entirely statutory. Once the judgment was recorded it could not be amended, though: ‘There are two exceptions to this general rule to the effect that the court does have power to re-hear an appeal if (i) on a proper analysis, the previous order is a nullity; or (ii) a defect in the procedure may have led to some real injustice.’
That the CACD has a similar iplicit jurisdiction to that in the CA: ‘ does not mean that the jurisdiction has necessarily to be exercised in the same way by the Criminal Division as it would be by the Civil Division. For example, in a criminal case there will often be three interests that have to be considered – that of the State, that of the defendant and that of the victim or alleged victim of the crime, even though the victim is not a party to the proceedings under the common law approach’
John Thomas LCJ, Sweeney, Warby JJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1277, [2015] WLR(D) 315
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Cross (Patrick) CACD 1973
The court had allowed an appeal against sentence; but later the same day the defendant was brought back because the court thought that he had not been frank in answering questions about another offence.
Held: The court set aside its original . .
Cited – Pedley, Martin and Hamadi v Regina CACD 14-May-2009
The court considered the justification for extended sentences of imprisonment for public protection: ‘Its justification is the protection of the public. It is indeterminate. Release depends on the judgment of the Parole Board as to the risk which . .
Cited – Blackwood, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2012
The defendant had succeeded in his appeal against a rape conviction. After the case, and his release, the prosecution sought a retrial. The defendant now argued that the court was functus officio.
Held: An order on an appeal becomes final when . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Regina v Daniel CACD 1977
The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, which had been refused by the single judge. He instructed solicitors who wrote to the court to advise that they intended to instruct Counsel on the renewed application. Due to an . .
Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited – Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschineenfabrik v South India Shipping Coroporation HL 1981
The parties had referred their dispute to arbitration, but there had been inordinate delay, and the plaintiffs complained that the delay had prejudiced them, and sought an injunction to prevent further contuance of the arbitration, saying that the . .
Cited – Regina v Pinfold CACD 1988
Once a person convicted of an offence on indictment appeals against that conviction and that appeal has been determined on its merits, the court has no jurisdiction to re-open it on fresh evidence coming to light.
Lord Lane CJ considered the . .
Cited – Pedley, Martin and Hamadi v Regina CACD 14-May-2009
The court considered the justification for extended sentences of imprisonment for public protection: ‘Its justification is the protection of the public. It is indeterminate. Release depends on the judgment of the Parole Board as to the risk which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550360