R v Peter Noble
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 08 September 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 2364 (Admin),[2006] EWHC 2074 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5226/2006 CO/4737/2006,CO/5226/2006 CO/4737/2006 CO/5226/2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 08 September 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
(lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers) and
Mr Justice Cresswell
CO/5226/2006 CO/4737/2006
MR SIMON DAVIS (instructed by Sheppards Solicitors Limited
Stafford) appeared on behalf of THE THREE APPELLANTS
THE RESPONDENT was not represented
Monday 17 July 2006
Mr Davis, we think the appropriate course is to adjourn this appeal so that the Crown Prosecution Service can be represented to deal with the issues of principle that arise. In particular, if it is to be said that a point is reached at which someone charged with a criminal offence has been proved guilty according to law at a stage prior to the conclusion of the proceedings, what are the principles that apply so as to satisfy that test?
MR DAVIS: My Lord, yes. I would be very grateful to be able to expand on the skeleton argument to address that issue.
Yes. We will see if we can get this brought back this term, but it may be difficult. But we will adjourn on that basis.
[2006] EWHC 2364 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales
(lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers) and
Mr Justice Bean
CO/5226/2006 CO/4737/2006 CO/5226/2006
MR SIMON DAVIS (instructed by Sheppards Solicitors Limited
Stafford) appeared on behalf of THE THREE APPELLANTS
MR PETER COOPER (instructed by South Staffordshire CPS)
appeared on behalf of THE RESPONDENT
Wednesday 16 August 2006
We are grateful to counsel for their submissions. We are able to answer the question for the opinion of the court. The question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v McNally
...and did not appreciate the elements of the offence to which she was pleading guilty: see Revitt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] 1 WLR 3172. Privilege having been waived, this is a combination of the remaining arguments to which we now turn.28 We start with the nature and extent of ......
-
R (Westminster city council) v Owadally and Another
...esp. at pp. 343–344 and 350–1; R v Morpeth Ward JJ, ex p Ward 95 Cr App R 215, esp. at p.221; Revitt v DPP [2006] EWHC 2266 (Admin); [2006] 1 WLR 3172, esp. at [20]. The tenor of the cases is that case stated is to be preferred where findings of fact are to be made because the Divisional C......
-
Ryan McLean Richard Gordon v R Christopher Counsel
...and did not display any equivocation. We accepted the following statement from Revitt and others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] 1 WLR 3172 at paragraph 17, to be an accurate statement of the law: “If after an unequivocal plea of guilty has been made, it becomes apparent that the ......
-
R v KC
...trial judge to refuse permission to change the plea. Similar approaches are evident in more recent decisions including in Revitt v DPP [2006] 1 WLR 3172 and in R v Brahmbhatt [2014] EWCA Crim 22 It follows that counsel gave erroneous advice to the appellant when informing him that there w......