R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Godwin and Crook

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL
Judgment Date29 July 1994
Judgment citation (vLex)[1994] EWCA Crim J0729-18
Docket NumberNo. 94/1519/S2
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date29 July 1994

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 July 2003
    ...by other interests, such as the statutory power to prohibit identification of child defendants and child victims. In Ex parte Crook [1995] 1 WLR 139, the criminal court trying parents for the manslaughter of one child and cruelty to three others had made an order under section 39 prohibiti......
  • R v Charlie Pearce – Ruling On Lifting Of Press Restrictions
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court
    • 19 December 2017
    ...of criminal proceedings against the desirability of not causing harm to a child concerned with the proceedings” (Ex parte Crook [1995] 1 WLR 139). SUBMISSIONS Press Submissions 44. On 5th November 2017, I received a written application from the Press Association made by its Midlands Corresp......
  • R A v Lowestoft Magistrates' Court Crown Prosecution Service and Another (Interested Parties)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 March 2013
    ...the practical reach of the prohibition in the specific case. Godwin was applied by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v The Central Criminal Court, ex parte ( Crook and Godwin unreported, 29 July 1994). 16 More recently, in re Trinity Mirror Plc and others [2008] EWCA Crim 50, the......
  • R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte S
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 October 1998
    ...a distinction which Parliament clearly intended to preserve." 23 In R. v. The Central Criminal Court, ex parte Crook and Godwin (1995) 2 Cr.App.R. 212, the court was primarily concerned with what representations a judge was entitled to hear before making a direction under 24 s. 39. But Glid......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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