Abbas v CPS

Abbas v CPS

The court held that the bad character application was speculative and unsupported, failing to meet the statutory test for admissibility; the magistrates were correct to restrict cross-examination and to limit the section 38 advocate's role; procedural objections by the prosecutor and legal advice were proper; all decisions were rational and appropriate.

Parties
Appellant: Abbas; Respondent: CPS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Cross Examination, Role of Section 38 Advocate, Disclosure, Judicial Review, Costs
Criminal Law Evidence Law 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbas

Appellant

CPS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment

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 court held that the bad character application was speculative and unsupported, failing to meet the statutory test for admissibility; the magistrates were correct to restrict cross-examination and to limit the section 38 advocate's role; procedural objections by the prosecutor and legal advice were proper; all decisions were rational and appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order in favour of respondent for £1,069, not to be enforced due to public funding