Kurtaj v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 1163 (11 September 2025)

Kurtaj v R. [2025] EWCA Crim 1163 (11 September 2025)

Evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to the applicant's unfitness to plead at the time, but the failure to exclude did not render the findings unsafe given the strength of the prosecution case. Other grounds of appeal were unarguable. Representatives appointed under s4A have authority to act in appeals and may be remunerated from central funds for arguable grounds.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1163
Parties
Applicant: Arion Kurtaj; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Findings Under S4 a Criminal Procedure (insanity) Act 1964
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave granted on ground 1 only; costs order for representatives on ground 1 only.
Legal Topics
Computer Misuse, Insanity and Fitness to Plead, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Appeals Procedure, Legal Representation and Funding
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Computer Misuse Insanity and Fitness to Plead Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Evidence Appeals Procedure Legal Representation and Funding

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

Parties

Arion Kurtaj

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Findings Under S4 a Criminal Procedure (insanity) Act 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to applicant's unfitness to plead at the time
  2. 2 Whether evidence of breach of bail conditions was admissible
  3. 3 Whether cross-examination about involvement of a third party ('the suspect') should have been permitted

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to the applicant's unfitness to plead at the time, but the failure to exclude did not render the findings unsafe given the strength of the prosecution case. Other grounds of appeal were unarguable. Representatives appointed under s4A have authority to act in appeals and may be remunerated from central funds for arguable grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave granted on ground 1 only; costs order for representatives on ground 1 only.

Orders

  • Payment out of central funds for representatives' work on ground 1, to be assessed by the Registrar.
  • Representatives to provide written particulars as required by Crim PR 45.4(5).