A, R. v

A, R. v

The trial judge's exclusion of bad character evidence, cross-examination, and certain witness statements was correct as the evidence lacked substantial probative value, was hearsay, or irrelevant. The conviction is safe and there is no material error in the judge's rulings.

Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Bad Character Evidence, Self Defence, Intent, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Bad Character Evidence Self Defence Intent Admissibility of Evidence

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

Parties

A

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of the deceased's bad character under section 100(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of certain cross-examination questions to prosecution witnesses was correct
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of evidence from the aunt was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's exclusion of bad character evidence, cross-examination, and certain witness statements was correct as the evidence lacked substantial probative value, was hearsay, or irrelevant. The conviction is safe and there is no material error in the judge's rulings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld
  • no material error in trial judge's rulings