LEGAL UPDATES
Keeping up to date is an essential part of a criminal defence lawyer’s work: new legislation and judicial decisions can affect the assessment of a case, procedural choices and defence options. Alongside my practice, I therefore carry out daily research and study, consulting official sources, legal journals and contributions available online.
This review grows out of that work. Here I share selected developments in criminal law, criminal procedure, sentence enforcement and corporate liability, with brief explanations and links for further reading. It is intended for colleagues, clients and anyone seeking to understand how criminal justice is evolving and what those changes mean in practice.
Last reviewed: 29 September 2026 · Daily review
Protective measures must not prevent a victim from participating in proceedings. The Court allows restoration of the deadline where isolation in a shelter prevented knowledge of the trial despite formally valid service. The actual impediment must be assessed, rather than service formalities alone. Counsel should therefore document the protective arrangements and the victim’s lack of knowledge of the proceedings.
An uncertified filing failure may justify restoring an appeal deadline under Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel must prove an external impediment amounting to unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. A generic allegation of technical trouble does not validate an appeal sent by certified email. The Court upheld inadmissibility because the alleged failures lacked evidence. Counsel should retain error messages, timestamps and support requests, and apply within ten days after the impediment ends.
In domestic abuse proceedings, the victim may respond to an application to revoke or replace a precautionary measure. A failure to respond does not establish that the risk of repetition has disappeared. The judge must assess that risk on concrete evidence. Defence applications should therefore document changes in the relevant circumstances rather than rely solely on the victim’s lack of opposition.
A complainant’s unjustified failure to attend as a witness does not extinguish a stalking offence. The Court distinguishes tacit withdrawal from the formal procedural withdrawal required for stalking. Where withdrawal is permitted, a declaration in the legally prescribed form is needed. Defence counsel should check the applicable prosecution rules and the validity of any withdrawal rather than infer it from absence at the hearing.
Browse dated editions, with news and original decisions.