NO CASE TO ANSWER

[2018] EWCA Crim 440
[2018] EWCA Crim 440
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, King J, Nicol J)
14 March 2018

The Court of Appeal set out how it should proceed where the prosecution, in addition to appealing against a trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer, also appealed against another ruling as permitted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.58(7). The court would have to examine the relationship between the rulings under appeal in deciding which to consider first, given that if the prosecution failed to obtain permission to appeal, the accused person would be acquitted.

[2017] EWHC 2963 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 2963 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Irwin LJ, Whipple J)
24 November 2017

A magistrates’ court had failed to adopt the correct approach when rejecting a submission of no case to answer in respect of a charge of robbery.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1072
[2017] EWCA Crim 1072
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Green J, Judge Taylor)
26 July 2017

The words “or otherwise” in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s.5(6) envisaged a third category of potentially vulnerable adults who were not suffering from an illness, disability or old age. In relation to the third category, the causes of vulnerability might be physical or psychological or they might arise from the victim’s circumstances.

[2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 1219 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Singh J)
25 May 2017

The Criminal Cases Review Commission had been justified in not referring the claimant’s conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal.

[2017] EWCA Crim 167
[2017] EWCA Crim 167
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Simler J, Judge Munro QC)
17 February 2017

Deficiencies in a judge’s legal directions to the jury, taken cumulatively with the absence of a structured route to verdict as well as other failures in his summing-up, were such as to render three convictions for joint enterprise robbery unsafe.

[2017] EWCA Crim 40
[2017] EWCA Crim 40
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Dingemans J, William Davis J)
17 February 2017

There was no evidential or legal principle which prevented a jury from considering a case which depended solely on the presence of the defendant’s DNA profile on an article left at the scene of a crime.

[2016] EWHC 3414 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 3414 (Admin)
DC (Treacy LJ, Wilkie J)
6 December 2016

A judge had been entitled to admit hearsay evidence in a trial for assault by beating and criminal damage. He had correctly considered whether the possibility of concoction or distortion could be disregarded when deciding to admit the hearsay evidence.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1751
[2016] EWCA Crim 1751
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Singh J, Recorder of Westminster)
29 November 2016

In the trial of a mother and grandmother for causing or allowing the death of a child contrary to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s.5, there was a body of evidence pointing to a possible conclusion that dehydration by neglect was a significant cause of death. The judge had been entitled to reject a submission of no case to answer and to place that issue before the jury.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1853
[2016] EWCA Crim 1853
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Goss J, Jefford J)
18 November 2016

A judge had been entitled to reject a submission of no case to answer in respect of an allegation of production of cannabis. There was ample circumstantial evidence to justify the case being left to the jury, including the presence of the offender’s DNA on water bottles at the premises used for production.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1616
[2016] EWCA Crim 1616
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Treacy LJ, Holroyde J)
3 November 2016

An offender sentenced to life imprisonment after an improvised explosive device he had made killed a US soldier in Iraq, had his minimum term reduced from 38 years to 35 years. The reduction reflected the fact that he had played a lesser role in the bomb-making process and his actions had partly been designed to protect the Sunni community from the Shiite militia. However, the offender’s application under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.23 to admit evidence from two witnesses whose names would only be disclosed to the prosecution within a tightly confined confidentiality ring, as part of his appeal against conviction, was rejected.

Scroll to top