AB v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) [2017] EWHC 2963 (Admin) (24 November 2017)

AB v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) [2017] EWHC 2963 (Admin) (24 November 2017)

The justices erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer because, taking the prosecution case at its highest, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude realistic possibilities consistent with innocence, specifically that the appellant's brother could have committed the robbery. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2963 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Conviction in Birmingham Youth Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Submission of No Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence, Adverse Inference From Silence, Recent Possession, Robbery
Criminal Law Submission of No Case to Answer Circumstantial Evidence Adverse Inference From Silence Recent Possession Robbery

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Conviction in Birmingham Youth Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the justices were correct to reject the submission of no case to answer under the Galbraith test
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for robbery was safe based on circumstantial evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The justices erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer because, taking the prosecution case at its highest, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude realistic possibilities consistent with innocence, specifically that the appellant's brother could have committed the robbery. The conviction was therefore unsafe and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed