Arion Kurtaj v R

Arion Kurtaj v R

Evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to unfairness arising from the applicant's likely unfitness to plead at the time, but this did not render the findings unsafe given the strength of the prosecution case. The other challenged rulings were correct or did not cause unfairness sufficient to undermine the findings.

Parties
Applicant: Arion Kurtaj; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on ground 1, appeal dismissed; renewed applications for leave on grounds 2, 3, and 4 refused.
Legal Topics
Fitness to Plead, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Cybercrime, Hospital Orders, Representation and Funding for Unfit Defendants
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Fitness to Plead Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Evidence Cybercrime Hospital Orders Representation and Funding for Unfit Defendants

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 and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to unfairness arising from applicant's unfitness to plead at the time
  2. 2 Whether evidence of breach of bail conditions was admissible and relevant
  3. 3 Whether cross-examination about involvement of another suspect should have been permitted

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of previous convictions should have been excluded due to unfairness arising from the applicant's likely unfitness to plead at the time, but this did not render the findings unsafe given the strength of the prosecution case. The other challenged rulings were correct or did not cause unfairness sufficient to undermine the findings.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on ground 1, appeal dismissed; renewed applications for leave on grounds 2, 3, and 4 refused.

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).