AWQ, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 898 (23 July 2024)

AWQ, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 898 (23 July 2024)

The judge's ruling failed to properly assess the prosecution's evidence and the inferences a reasonable jury could draw regarding AWQ's involvement in assisting an organised crime group. The evidence was sufficient to go before a jury. The exclusion of hearsay evidence was also erroneous, as the messages were relevant, their provenance established, and the inability to secure the witness's attendance did not justify exclusion.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 898
Parties
Applicant Crown: Rex; Respondent Defendant: AWQ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal a Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's rulings reversed; fresh trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Terminating Ruling, No Case to Answer, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Extension of Time, Organised Crime, Conspiracy to Supply Drugs
Criminal Law Terminating Ruling No Case to Answer Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Extension of Time Organised Crime Conspiracy to Supply Drugs

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant Crown

AWQ

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal a Terminating Ruling Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer against AWQ under section 45(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in excluding hearsay evidence (text messages) under section 114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether extensions of time for service of appeal documents should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's ruling failed to properly assess the prosecution's evidence and the inferences a reasonable jury could draw regarding AWQ's involvement in assisting an organised crime group. The evidence was sufficient to go before a jury. The exclusion of hearsay evidence was also erroneous, as the messages were relevant, their provenance established, and the inability to secure the witness's attendance did not justify exclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's rulings reversed; fresh trial ordered.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Judge's rulings on no case to answer and hearsay evidence reversed.