The first edition of Archbold Review of 2017 has cited two of Philip Rule’s criminal appeal cases:
- In brief is noted the decision in Wilcocks 1 Arch. Rev. 3 which appeal against conviction for murder considered the reverse burden of proof for diminished responsibility, and the relevance of personality disorder to the legal test in the defence of loss of control;
- And an in-depth article considers lex mitiorand Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 that was the focus of the appeal heard by the Court of Appeal and then Supreme Court in R v Docherty  1 Arch. Rev. 5 where an IPP was imposed after the abolition date for such sentence regime.
A judicial review claim presented by Philip Rule in R (Connell) v SSHD  4 WLR 38 has also been the subject of academic comment in the Criminal Law Week. The case concerns a challenge to the non-deportation of an Irish national and
(1) successfully established that there is a duty to give reasons for the decision not to deport the person; but
(2) did not establish that the UK Borders Act 2007 automatic deportation provisions applied. On that latter point the editors of CLW state that “it is submitted that, for the reasons given (and advanced by the claimant’s counsel (see [23 et seq.])), the argument should have been upheld”.