Mehmet Ordu v The Crown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Edis |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Crim 4 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 201600986 C5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 20 January 2017 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
R v GS
...obtain exceptional leave. For completeness, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those pertaining in R v Ordu [2017] EWCA Crim 4; [2017] 1 Cr App R 21, where the quashing of the conviction would have had no practical consequences. Finally, if the Applicant is othe......
-
R v James
...QB 720; [1981] 3 WLR 120; [1981] 2 All ER 1008; 73 Cr App R 159, CAR v McCook [2014 EWCA Crim 734; [2016] 2 Cr App R 30, CAR v Ordu [2017] EWCA Crim 4; [2017] 1 Cr App R 21, CAR v Pinfold [1988] QB 462; [1988] 2 WLR 635; [1988] 2 All ER 217; 87 Cr App R 15, CAR v Roberts (Mark) [2016] EWCA ......
-
GB v R
...exceptional leave. For completeness, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those pertaining in R v Ordu [2017] EWCA Crim 4; [2017] 1 Cr App R 21, where the quashing of the conviction would have had no practical consequences. Finally, if the Applicant is otherwise ......
-
Jordan Towers Anthony Stewart Hawkes v The Queen
...it considered that in light of the unique stigma of a conviction for murder, Towers' youth and the approach of this Court in R v Ordu [2017] EWCA Crim 4, if the conviction for murder is no longer legally sustainable it would be a substantial injustice to uphold it. The Effect of Jogee and ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
The Test for ‘Substantial Injustice’ After Jogee and Johnson: R v Towers and Another [2019] EWCA 198 (Crim)
...same considerations willoften be relevant to both tests does not make the two tests the same’ (at [61]). The Court relied uponOrdu v R [2017] EWCA Crim 4 where Edis J stated ‘There is an obvious difference between the twoexercises which give rise to the two tests’ (at [26]) and R v Crilly [......