Gilfoyle, R (On the Application Of) v Criminal Cases Review Commission (Rev 1)
The Commission's Final Decision not to refer the claimant's conviction to the Court of Appeal was lawful, rational, and not materially affected by any error of fact or law. The Commission properly evaluated all new evidence and applied the correct statutory test. The renewed application for judicial review is dismissed.
- Parties
- Claimant: Norman Edward Gilfoyle; Defendant: Criminal Cases Review Commission
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 24 November 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fresh Evidence, Safety of Conviction, Commission's Statutory Test, Expert Evidence, Disclosure, Mental Health and Medication, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Norman Edward Gilfoyle
Claimant
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Commission's decision not to refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal was irrational or legally flawed
- 2 Whether new evidence (diaries, rope/knot evidence, medication) undermined the safety of the conviction
- 3 Whether the Commission made material errors of fact or law in its evaluation of new evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The Commission's Final Decision not to refer the claimant's conviction to the Court of Appeal was lawful, rational, and not materially affected by any error of fact or law. The Commission properly evaluated all new evidence and applied the correct statutory test. The renewed application for judicial review is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment