R v Kawsor Miah

R v Kawsor Miah

The hearing on 28th April 2023 was not a preparatory hearing as required by statute and rules; no formal order or announcement was made to that effect. Therefore, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal against the evidentiary ruling made at that hearing.

Parties
Applicant: Kawsor Miah; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling; Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Preparatory Hearings, Jurisdiction, Admissibility of Evidence, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Terrorism Preparatory Hearings Jurisdiction Admissibility of Evidence Reporting Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kawsor Miah

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling; Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal against a ruling on admissibility of evidence not made at a preparatory hearing
  2. 2 Whether the hearing on 28th April 2023 was a preparatory hearing under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The hearing on 28th April 2023 was not a preparatory hearing as required by statute and rules; no formal order or announcement was made to that effect. Therefore, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal against the evidentiary ruling made at that hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Reporting restrictions under section 37 of CPIA 1996 do not apply to this judgment.