ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related practice notes about Case stated

Appeals in insolvency proceedings

Appeals in insolvency proceedings Appeals—the general position in litigation Appeals in litigation are governed by CPR 52 and its practice directions, being CPR PD 52A, CPR PD 52B, CPR PD 52C, CPR PD 52D and CPR PD 52E. The applicable practice directions, broadly speaking, deal with the following: • CPR PD 52A contains general provisions relating to appeals • CPR PD 52B contains provisions for appeals in the County Court and High Court • CPR PD 52C contains provisions for appeals in the Court of Appeal • CPR PD 52D contains provisions relating to statutory appeals and appeals subject to special provision • CPR PD 52E contains provisions relating to appeals by way of case stated Grounds for appealing An appeal will only be allowed if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was: • wrong, or • unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court Appeals will generally be limited to a...

Sexual harm prevention orders

Sexual harm prevention orders SA 2020, Ch 2 Pt 10 provides for sexual harm prevention orders (SHPOs) to be made by the court where it deals with a defendant (ie following conviction) for specific types of offences. The provisions of SOA 2003, as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014), and SA 2020, at SOA 2003, ss 103A to 103K, govern the making of SHPOs otherwise than in connection with a conviction ie where: • a court finds a person not guilty of a specified sexual or violent offence by reason of insanity • a court finds that the defendant is under a disability and has done the act charged against the defendant in respect of such an offence, or • on the application of the police in respect of a qualifying offender who poses a risk to the public This Practice Note is concerned primarily with the making of SHPOs as part of the sentencing process on conviction. For information on sexual...

View the related q&as about Case stated

Where a defendant appeals a conviction and sentence in the magistrates' court to the Crown Court, and the Crown Court on hearing the appeal re-affirms the conviction and imposes a new sentence, what is the date of conviction? Is it the date of the Crown Court decision, or the date of the magistrates' decision?

Where a defendant appeals a conviction and sentence in the magistrates' court to the Crown Court, and the Crown Court on hearing the appeal re-affirms the conviction and imposes a new sentence, what is the date of conviction? Is it the date of the Crown Court decision, or the date of the magistrates' decision? A defendant has a right of appeal from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court following a plea of not guilty against their conviction, sentence or both (section 108(1)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980)). An appeal against conviction can be on points of law or fact and will be a full rehearing of the case including calling all those witnesses on whose evidence they seek to rely (section 79(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981)). As such, the date of conviction is the date of conviction at the Crown Court. The procedure for commencing an appeal against conviction from the magistrates' court is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020...

View the related News about Case stated

Environmental offences, sentencing guidelines (EA v JJCEG Ltd)

Corporate Crime analysis: The Administrative Court rejected an appeal where it was argued that any economic gain derived as a consequence of the offending had to ‘retained’ by the offender in order to be included in the overall fine under step five of the sentencing guidelines for environmental offences. Furthermore, in calculating the economic gain, the court was entitled (on the facts of this case) to refuse to take into account any penalty that might become due to the tax authorities because of the offending on the basis that at the time of sentence (despite the issuing of a letter of warning by HMRC), such a penalty was ‘speculative’. Written by David Brooke QC, barrister, at KBW Chambers, Leeds, who appeared on behalf of the defendant.

Stripping offenders of their economic benefit when sentencing environmental crimes (Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd v Environment Agency)

Corporate Crime Analysis: In Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd v Environment Agency, the administrative court gave guidance to sentencing judges when calculating benefit at step five of the sentencing process in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. A sentencing court may take into account outstanding landfill tax liabilities, costs of restitution and other costs incurred by an offender when determining whether or not, or to what extent, an offender has benefitted from environmental crime. Written by Matthew Paul, barrister, at Civitas Law.