Harirbafan, R. v

Harirbafan, R. v

The conviction was unsafe because the Recorder's interventions during the defence case, particularly with defence witnesses, were excessive, amounted to cross-examination, and prevented the defence from presenting its case coherently, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Parties
Appellant: Arash Harirbafan; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Judicial Impartiality, Fair Trial, Money Laundering, Judicial Intervention, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Judicial Impartiality Fair Trial Money Laundering Judicial Intervention 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arash Harirbafan

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether excessive and partisan judicial interventions during trial rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the appellant received a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the Recorder's interventions during the defence case, particularly with defence witnesses, were excessive, amounted to cross-examination, and prevented the defence from presenting its case coherently, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • no retrial ordered