R v AB & Anor

R v AB & Anor

The request for CD's phone PIN was lawful and did not breach PACE Codes; even if there was a technical breach, it was neither deliberate nor flagrant, and did not taint the reliability of the evidence. The circumstances did not warrant exclusion of the evidence or a re-trial under section 82(3) of PACE.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; First Defendant: AB; Second Defendant: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Re Trial After Evidence Admitted at Trial
Outcome
Application for re-trial refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, PACE Compliance, Police Procedure, Children in Criminal Proceedings, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Evidence PACE Compliance Police Procedure Children in Criminal Proceedings Fair Trial Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

AB

First Defendant

CD

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Re Trial After Evidence Admitted at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the circumstances in which CD provided her phone PIN fatally undermined the fairness of the trial
  2. 2 Whether the evidence obtained from CD's phone should be excluded or a re-trial ordered under section 82(3) of PACE

Ratio Decidendi

The request for CD's phone PIN was lawful and did not breach PACE Codes; even if there was a technical breach, it was neither deliberate nor flagrant, and did not taint the reliability of the evidence. The circumstances did not warrant exclusion of the evidence or a re-trial under section 82(3) of PACE.

Court Disposition

Application for re-trial refused