Court Of Appeal Criminal Rulings
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) hears appeals against convictions and sentences from the Crown Court. It plays a critical role in:
Correcting miscarriages of justice.
Clarifying points of law.
Setting binding precedent for lower courts.
Reviewing whether sentences are proportionate.
Appeals can be made on:
Grounds of conviction (e.g., errors in law, unsafe verdicts).
Grounds of sentence (e.g., unduly harsh or lenient).
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. R v. Jogee; Ruddock v. The Queen [2016] UKSC 8 (Also CACD Ruling Influence)
Facts: Jogee was convicted of murder as a joint principal, based on the doctrine of joint enterprise.
Court of Appeal Role: The CACD referred the case to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue: Clarification of the law on joint enterprise and intent.
Outcome: Supreme Court overruled previous joint enterprise principles, emphasizing that foresight alone is insufficient for murder conviction.
Significance: The CACD played a vital role in revisiting and referring the case, leading to a landmark change in joint enterprise law.
2. R v. Jogee (2014) – Appeal on Joint Enterprise
Facts: Jogee appealed his murder conviction.
Court of Appeal Decision: Initially upheld conviction but raised doubts, leading to Supreme Court referral.
Significance: Showed how CACD can question existing legal doctrines and prompt higher court clarification.
3. R v. Adams [2020] EWCA Crim 267 – Sentencing Guidelines on Knife Crime
Facts: Adams was convicted of a serious knife offense.
Issue: Whether sentencing guidelines were correctly applied.
Court of Appeal Ruling: Adjusted sentence based on updated guidelines emphasizing harm and culpability.
Significance: Demonstrated CACD’s role in ensuring sentences follow evolving legal standards.
4. R v. Makanjuola [2019] EWCA Crim 493 – Consent in Sexual Offenses
Facts: Defendant appealed conviction on grounds related to consent.
Issue: Whether evidence of consent was properly considered.
Outcome: Conviction upheld but clarified standards for evaluating consent evidence.
Significance: Reinforced legal principles around consent in sexual offense trials.
5. R v. Turner [2019] EWCA Crim 68 – Safeguarding Fair Trial Rights
Facts: Turner appealed on grounds that evidence was improperly admitted.
Issue: Whether trial judge’s rulings on evidence prejudiced the jury.
Outcome: Conviction quashed due to procedural unfairness.
Significance: Highlighted CACD’s vigilance in protecting fair trial rights.
6. R v. Riat [2021] EWCA Crim 92 – Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Facts: Defendant challenged admissibility of psychiatric evidence.
Court of Appeal Decision: Set guidelines on when expert evidence is necessary and admissible.
Significance: Important for cases involving mental health and criminal responsibility.
7. R v. Mohammed (2017) EWCA Crim 1015 – Terrorism Offense Sentencing
Facts: Appeal against sentence length for terrorism-related offense.
Court of Appeal Decision: Upheld sentence, emphasizing deterrence and public protection.
Significance: Showcases CACD’s role in balancing individual circumstances and public interest.
Key Functions Highlighted by These Cases
| Function | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Law Clarification | CACD refines or challenges legal principles (e.g., joint enterprise). |
| Sentence Review | Ensures sentences are consistent with guidelines and proportionate. |
| Fair Trial Protection | Guards against procedural errors and ensures evidence is properly admitted. |
| Precedent Setting | Decisions bind lower courts and influence future cases. |
| Referral Role | Can refer important cases to the Supreme Court for final rulings. |
Summary
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division plays a crucial role in the UK criminal justice system by reviewing convictions and sentences, correcting errors, and clarifying legal principles. Its rulings often reshape criminal law, influence trial practices, and protect defendants' rights. The cases above illustrate the breadth of issues the CACD addresses, from joint enterprise doctrine to sentencing and evidentiary standards.
RELATED Blog
comments