Crown Court in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte DPP
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Nov 1993

    On any ordinary meaning of the words, the question whether or not there is jurisdiction to try on indictment must "relate to" trial on indictment. On any ordinary meaning of the words, the question whether or not there is jurisdiction to try on indictment must "relate to" trial on indictment.

    It may therefore be a helpful further pointer to the true construction of the section to ask the question, "Is the decision sought to be reviewed one arising in the issue between the Crown and the defendant formulated by the indictment (including the costs of such issue)?" It may therefore be a helpful further pointer to the true construction of the section to ask the question, "Is the decision sought to be reviewed one arising in the issue between the Crown and the defendant formulated by the indictment (including the costs of such issue)?"

  • R (on the application of Matthew Goode) v The Crown Court at Nottingham (1st Defendant) Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (2nd Defendant)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 Jun 2013

    It seems to me that the ground of challenge to seizure provided by section 59(3)(a) does not enable the applicant to challenge the validity of the warrant in the Crown Court.

  • R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Court
    • House of Lords
    • 17 Oct 2002

    However, I agree that, given the seriousness of matters involved, at least some reference to the heightened civil standard would usually be necessary: In re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, 586D-H, per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. But in my view pragmatism dictates that the task of magistrates should be made more straightforward by ruling that they must in all cases under section 1 apply the criminal standard.

  • R v Harrow Crown Court, ex parte Dave
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 18 Oct 1993

    So in our judgment the weight of authority is now in favour of the conclusion that when the Crown Court sits in an appellate capacity it must give reasons for its decision. As long ago as 1981 Griffiths LJ in this Court when considering the failure of a Crown Court Judge to give reasons when dismissing an appeal from a decision of a gaming licence committee said ( R v Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte International Sporting Club [1982] 1 QB 304 at 314H:

    The Crown Court Judge giving the decision of the Court upon an appeal must say enough to demonstrate that the Court has identified the main contentious issues in the case and how it has resolved each of them.

  • R Desmond Shields-McKinley (Claimant) The Secretary of State for Justice The Lord Chancellor (Defendant) The Crown Court at Derby (Interested Party)
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 05 Apr 2017

    That failure by the Crown Court was regrettable, but it was not a "gross and obvious" error in the sentencing process because it does not appear that any submission had been made inviting the Recorder to specify the Germany days, and it appears that he therefore sentenced in ignorance of the fact that the Claimant was entitled to credit for the period during which he had been detained pending his extradition.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT