Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence [2007] EWHC 2154 (Admin) (16 July 2007)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence [2007] EWHC 2154 (Admin) (16 July 2007)

Code C Part 11.13 does not apply to words constituting the offence itself; it applies to self-incriminatory statements made after the commission of the offence. The justices erred in law by excluding the evidence of the words spoken by the defendant on the basis of Code C Part 11.13.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2154 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Billy Oliver Lawrence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declaratory ruling only, no remission for further prosecution.
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace), Public Order Act 1986 Section 5, Code C Part 11.13, Section 78 PACE, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Public Order Exclusion of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace) Public Order Act 1986 Section 5 Code C Part 11.13 Section 78 PACE Fair Trial

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Billy Oliver Lawrence

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Code C Part 11.13 of PACE applies to words constituting the offence itself
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of evidence of words spoken as part of the offence was correct under section 78 PACE

Ratio Decidendi

Code C Part 11.13 does not apply to words constituting the offence itself; it applies to self-incriminatory statements made after the commission of the offence. The justices erred in law by excluding the evidence of the words spoken by the defendant on the basis of Code C Part 11.13.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declaratory ruling only, no remission for further prosecution.

Orders

  • Answer to the case stated: the justices erred in law in excluding the evidence of the words spoken by the defendant.