Abstract
Convicted felons at the Old Bailey and on assize in nineteenth-century England
had no right of appeal. They had either to submit to their fate or, if they had
the means, petition the Crown for a pardon. The legal avenues for redress were
limited. A writ of error would lie to a superior court for legal errors that
appeared on the face of the record but by the nineteenth century this was seldom
used. More significantly, it was open for the trial judge to reserve questions
of law for the informal and private consideration of all the common law judges.
In their illuminating studies of this practice in the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, James Oldham and Randall McGowen elucidate the ways in
which the judiciary used reserved cases to develop legal doctrine and to shape
the operation of criminal justice. The trend toward increased formalization of
procedure that they identify, culminated in 1848, when Parliament created the
Court for Crown Cases Reserved (CCCR). The new court adopted the existing method
of reserving cases, but was a court of record that sat and gave judgment in
public. It became the highest judicial forum for the determination of questions
of criminal law until 1908, when it was superseded by the Court of Criminal
Appeal.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献