Consequences of Irregularity Vitiating Trial
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300530 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
restricted purpose sought to be imposed by
the
appellant. The court
preferred a literal meaning of the words used, unaffected by
any
ulti-
mate
purpose of the Act.
It
would, indeed, be contrary to
common
sense
if
the
conversion of
the
proceeds of drug trafficking for the purpose of
purchasing a fresh supply of drugs, to promote further criminal activity,
could
not
'be prevented by the subsection, while conversion for the
purpose of saving the money, on retirement from further criminal
activity, was punished.
Consequences
of
Irregularity Vitiating Trial
Rv
Booth,
Wood
and
Holland
[1999] 1Cr App R
457
Six defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit criminal dam-
age.
Four
were tried together, of
whom
three (the present appellants)
were
convicted
and
sentenced to three years' imprisonment each. On
appeal, the convictions were set aside as the court held
that
there was
an
irregularity in the indictment which
had
the
effect of vitiating
the
whole
trial. The court decided, for reasons which it set
out
in full,
that
it would
not
order a retrial.
It
was
the
Crown's intention to' proceed
with
the
pending trial of the two remaining defendants
who
had
not
as yet
been
tried.
It
was intended that in that trial the three appellants whose
convictions
had
just been set aside should be
named
as conspirators
who
had
conspired with the
two
defendants
who
were still to be tried,
and
to
give evidence of their activities in the furtherance of
the
conspiracy. The
solicitors for
the
defendants still to be tried intended to rely on
the
fact
that
the
three appellants whose convictions
had
been
set aside by the
Court of Appeal had been acquitted as provided by s 2(3) of the Criminal
the
Courtof
Appeal
had
'allowed the appeal
and
quashed
the
conviction', arecord
which seemed to confirm the stance taken by
the
solicitors. But the
Crown was
not
convinced of the accuracy of that record
and
went
back
to
the
Court of Appeal to obtain
the
precise terms of that court's order
and,
if
necessary, to have its record rectified,
if
that record did
not
state
what
had
been
the court's intention.
Section 2(3) of
the
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended, provides
that
the
court may allow an appeal if it thinks that the conviction is
unsafe
and
in the case of an appeal against conviction, they shall,
if
they
allow
the
appeal, quash the conviction. An order quashing aconviction
shall, in the absence of an order for a retrial, act as
an
order to
the
trial
court to enter, in the place of
the
record of conviction, a
judgment
and
verdict of acquittal. ,
Division of
the
Court of Appeal has all
the
jurisdiction of
the
Court of
Appeal
under
Parts I
and
includes jurisdiction
under
s7
and
the
power to order
the
issue of writs
of
venire
de
novo.
450
To continue reading
Request your trial