- Criminal law and procedure—appeals, jury trials, indictments (R v Bermingham)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Jury bias
- Relitigating interlocutory appeals
- Legal certainty, retrospectivity, and Ivey v Genting Casinos
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: Second chances in the Court of Appeal—the limits of jurors who know too much, and another look at the conspiracy to defraud offence. In a multifaceted judgment, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division held—(i) jury bias on the grounds of personal knowledge requires special knowledge either of the individuals involved or of the facts of the case, (ii) arguments dealt with on interlocutory appeals cannot be relitigated after conviction, even by a co-defendant who did not participate, unless per incuriam or where the conviction was otherwise improper, (iii) the developing nature of the common law overrides concerns about legal certainty and retrospectivity. Although the narrowing of the mens rea for dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos post-dated the offending, there was no inconsistency with Article 7 of the ECHR. This aspect may be the subject of an application to the Supreme Court. Written by Richard Furlong, barrister, at Carmelite Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial