Central Criminal Court
It is located in London. It is known as old Bailly Court. This court hears and judges all the criminal cases committed in London. In addition to the judges, the Mayor sits as a judge of the court. Divisional court of Queen's Bench Division It is a part of the high court. This court being a part of the High court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. As a criminal court it generally exercises appellate jurisdiction. It exercises its original jurisdiction only within the county of London and Middlesex.
Composition:
This court consists of at least two but usually three judges the division. Jurisdiction
The appellate jurisdiction of the court is exercised over gade from magistrate courts and the crown court. The court has also reversionary power to reView the cases sent to it from the inferior courts by an order of certiorari.
Court of Appeal:-
Since 1968 when the Criminal Appeal Act, 1968 came irito operation, the Court of Appeal started functioning as a criminal court. By the Act of 1968 the Court of Criminal Appeal of 1907 was abolished. Thus, the criminal division of the Court of Appeal is the successor of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The judges of the court are-.
(1) The Lord Chief Justice.
(2) The Lord Justices of Appeal
(3) The Judges of the Queens Bench Division.
Jurisdiction of the court:-
(1) It can accept or reject an appeal.
(2) It can nullify a conviction by a lower court.
(3) According to the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, it can send a case to a lower court for retrial. Prior to the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, if an appeal was made, the court not only decrease the punishment or return it but also could increase the punishment. This act removed the power of increasing punishment. Now, the court can not increase the punishment awarded by the lower court. The practice of the court of Appeal shows that it removed the procedural limits or irregularities done by the lower court.
For example, RV. Mckken (1960):-
(Brief facts)
In this case the judges in the crown court told the jury. J to catch a train of 5 O'clock. So, finish the procedure quickly.
Then the jury said quickly "Yes" he is guilty. In appeal the Court of Appeal found that there was a procedural mistake. Because, here the prisoner should have been allowed to show cause. So, there was a question of mistake or misunderstanding.
In R V. Rose (1982) (Newton)
(Brief facts)
In this case there had been a material irregularity in the course of the trial as the judges sent messages to the jury imposing time-limits or their deliberations. The Court of Appeal had quashed the conviction.
The House of lord affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
