C v R.

C v R.

The defendant is entitled to contest his guilt of prior convictions used as evidence in the current trial, and cannot be prevented from adducing admissible evidence to prove he did not commit those offences. The trial judge's ruling was wrong to fetter this statutory right, though proper case management remains...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Preparatory Hearing Ruling
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Previous Convictions, Right to Challenge Prior Convictions, Case Management, Criminal Procedure Rules, Police and Criminal Evidence Act Section 74(3)
Criminal Law Admissibility of Previous Convictions Right to Challenge Prior Convictions Case Management Criminal Procedure Rules Police and Criminal Evidence Act Section 74(3)

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Preparatory Hearing Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant can challenge the correctness of prior convictions used as evidence in the current trial
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's ruling improperly restricted the defendant's statutory right under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  3. 3 How to manage the trial process to avoid satellite litigation while preserving the defendant's rights

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is entitled to contest his guilt of prior convictions used as evidence in the current trial, and cannot be prevented from adducing admissible evidence to prove he did not commit those offences. The trial judge's ruling was wrong to fetter this statutory right, though proper case management remains essential to avoid satellite litigation.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The defendant may advance his positive case that he was not guilty of the earlier Huntsman offences.
  • A more detailed defence statement must be provided identifying the ingredients of the challenge to prior convictions.