Abbas v CPS [2015] EWHC 579 (Admin) (05 February 2015)

Abbas v CPS [2015] EWHC 579 (Admin) (05 February 2015)

The Magistrates' Court was correct to refuse the bad character application as it lacked substantial probative value and was based on speculation. The court properly restricted cross-examination on inadmissible material. The prosecutor's procedural objection and the legal adviser's advice were appropriate. The section 38 advocate's role is limited by statute, and the court acted within its discretion.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 579 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Abbas; Respondent: CPS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Cross Examination, Role of Section 38 Advocate, Disclosure, Judicial Review, Costs
Criminal Law Evidence Bad Character Evidence Cross Examination Role of Section 38 Advocate Disclosure Judicial Review Costs

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbas

Appellant

CPS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrates' Court properly directed itself and reached a lawful conclusion in relation to the appellant's bad character application
  2. 2 Whether the court was correct to intervene in the cross-examination of the complainant
  3. 3 Whether it was improper of prosecuting counsel to have taken exception to the continued presence of Miss Tomlinson assisting the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrates' Court was correct to refuse the bad character application as it lacked substantial probative value and was based on speculation. The court properly restricted cross-examination on inadmissible material. The prosecutor's procedural objection and the legal adviser's advice were appropriate. The section 38 advocate's role is limited by statute, and the court acted within its discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • application for costs granted to respondent
  • order not to be enforced due to public funding