James, R v

James, R v

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant was denied access to a solicitor in breach of section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the confessions obtained in those circumstances should have been excluded. Without those confessions, there was no case to answer and the appellant would have been acquitted.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Albert George James
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Referral by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
appeal allowed, conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Confession Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Right to Legal Counsel, Breach of Statutory Rights, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Confession Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Right to Legal Counsel Breach of Statutory Rights Unsafe Conviction

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Albert George James

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Referral by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction is unsafe due to breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, specifically denial of access to a solicitor and the admission of confessions obtained in those circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant was denied access to a solicitor in breach of section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the confessions obtained in those circumstances should have been excluded. Without those confessions, there was no case to answer and the appellant would have been acquitted.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.
  • Witness expenses for attendance approved.