DPP v Jinks [2024] EWHC 3341 (Admin) – S 127(5)(b) ComA. - in extended time limit provisions:
1) relevant date is when P first considers the material evidence, thus acquiring knowledge of its content (not date when P may later form opinion proceedings justified)
2) time starts running as soon as P acquires such knowledge even if, at that time, P does not consider proceedings justified.
3) where decision not to prosecute reversed, based on different evidence after further inquiries, time runs from date of review decision.
4) proceedings should be brought expeditiously.
R (McGill) v Newcastle Magistrates’ Court [2024] EWHC 1207 (Admin) – R 7.2(14) CrimPR – s 1(1) MCA. - magistrates’ court refusal to issue summons.
- the six examples in r 7.2(14) of where the court “may” decline to issue summons are only “examples”.
- if circumstances are not covered by examples, may still be appropriate to refuse summons.
– if circumstances are covered by examples, may still be appropriate to issue summons.
- must still be considered whether individual circumstances give compelling reasons why not proper case to issue summons.
Cuciurean v CPS [2024] EWHC 848 (Admin) Ss 108 and 111 MCA. - appeal by case stated to High Court by party aggrieved by decision of magistrates’ court (s 111(1) MCA).
- applicant under s 111(1), but no other party, loses right to appeal to Crown Court (s 111(4) MCA).
- where P appeals by way of case stated under s 111(1), D does not lose right of appeal to Crown Court under s 108 MCA.
Latest Articles
Access all Areas: The Ghost of Woolworths Victor Smith ponders a recent case which suggests that the 2002 decision in Woolworths, may still be unduly influential despite the Court of Appeal having declared it to be wrongly decided. First published in the New Law Journal with Part 1 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8011 p9 and with Part 2 at (2023) 173 NLJ 8012 p11.
De Montfort University: My Student Experience and the Law Victor Smith recounts his three-year attempt to get a recalcitrant university to comply with its procedures and honour its promises. Court finds DMU handled student complaint "badly" but student effectively penalised in costs.
Double Jeopardy: Autrefois & Beyond Victor Smith examines the circumstances in which it would offend the court’s sense of justice and propriety to proceed with a prosecution when the accused has faced that same or similar peril before. In such cases the defendant may plead autrefois or, where that is not applicable, seek a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. First published in the New Law Journal at (2021) 171 NLJ 7933, p13 with Part 2 at (2021) 171 NLJ 7935.
Guilt from Circumstance: A Matter of Inference Victor Smith looks at when inference can result in conviction. A shorter version was previously published in the New Law Journal at (2019) 169 NLJ 7865, p12.
Amending the Defendant’s Name Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another and considers the Platinum case which highlights the distinction between entities that are truly different and the same defendant who has merely been misnamed. First published as “Who’s in the dock?” at (2018) 168 NLJ 7813, p11 with Part 2 at (2018) 168 NLJ 7814, p11.