header-logo header-logo

Criminal litigation

10 July 2008
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (CPS) v Gloucester Justices [2008] All ER (D) 197 (Jun)

Under s 8B of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, the grounds for varying a pre-trial ruling where the court acts of its own motion are simply that the variation is in the interests of justice, whereas there is the additional requirement of a material change of circumstances where a party applies for such a variation.

However, it is difficult to accept that it could be in the interests of justice for the court to annul or discharge its own ruling without a compelling reason to do so, such as changed circumstances or fresh evidence. It is not sufficient that a different bench reaches a different conclusion on the same material.

Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

Quinn Emanuel—James McSweeney

London promotion underscores firm’s investment in white collar and investigations

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Ward Hadaway—Louise Miller

Private client team strengthened by partner appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll