Hounsham & Ors, R v

Hounsham & Ors, R v

The police acted ultra vires in soliciting and accepting funds from insurance companies, but there was no evidence of prejudice to the appellants or partiality in the investigation. The failures in disclosure were not deliberate and did not deprive the appellants of a fair trial. The inadvertent disclosure of previous convictions was trivial and cured by the judge's direction. The judge's refusal to stay the proceedings or discharge the jury was a proper exercise of discretion. The appeals are dismissed.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant/defendant: Robin Edward Hounsham; Appellant/defendant: Richard Mayes; Appellant/defendant: Michael George Blake
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Police Powers, Conspiracy to Defraud, Jury Discharge
Criminal Law Procedure Abuse of Process Disclosure Police Powers Conspiracy to Defraud Jury Discharge

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Robin Edward Hounsham

Appellant/defendant

Richard Mayes

Appellant/defendant

Michael George Blake

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process due to police soliciting and accepting funds from insurance companies
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose funding documents warranted a stay
  3. 3 Whether inadvertent disclosure of previous convictions to the jury required discharge of the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The police acted ultra vires in soliciting and accepting funds from insurance companies, but there was no evidence of prejudice to the appellants or partiality in the investigation. The failures in disclosure were not deliberate and did not deprive the appellants of a fair trial. The inadvertent disclosure of previous convictions was trivial and cured by the judge's direction. The judge's refusal to stay the proceedings or discharge the jury was a proper exercise of discretion. The appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed