Abstract/Summary

This paper analyses the Court of Appeal decision in R v Crilly [2018] EWCA Crim 168. This was the first out-of-time appeal after R v Jogee in which the applicant succeeded in demonstrating ‘substantial injustice’ and having his murder conviction vacated. Although the judgment demonstrates that the Court remains faithful to its approach in R v Johnson and the high threshold test of ‘substantial injustice', Crilly suggests that if it can be shown that an applicant's case was in essence about foresight, the odd reference to intention might not prove fatal to demonstrating that had the jury been given Jogee-compliant directions on accessorial liability, this would have made a difference to their verdict.