A v R

A v R

The conviction is safe because the appellant's conduct met the elements of perverting the course of justice, and no viable defence of duress was available based on contemporaneous evidence. The prosecution did not constitute an abuse of process, and subsequent CPS guidance does not retrospectively render the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, False Retraction, Duress, Prosecutorial Discretion, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Domestic Violence Perverting the Course of Justice False Retraction Duress Prosecutorial Discretion Abuse of Process

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for perverting the course of justice by false retraction is safe
  2. 2 Whether duress was a viable defence
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution constituted an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is safe because the appellant's conduct met the elements of perverting the course of justice, and no viable defence of duress was available based on contemporaneous evidence. The prosecution did not constitute an abuse of process, and subsequent CPS guidance does not retrospectively render the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.