R v R

R v R

There was evidence upon which a reasonable jury could infer that the gloves were made for use as a weapon; therefore, the Recorder was wrong in law to stop the case, and it should have been left to the jury to decide.

Parties
Applicant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Offensive Weapons, Terminating Ruling, Fresh Trial, Interests of Justice
Criminal Law Offensive Weapons Terminating Ruling Fresh Trial Interests of Justice

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Applicant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the gloves in question were capable in law of being regarded as an offensive weapon under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder was correct to stop the case at the close of prosecution evidence
  3. 3 Whether a fresh trial should be ordered in the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence upon which a reasonable jury could infer that the gloves were made for use as a weapon; therefore, the Recorder was wrong in law to stop the case, and it should have been left to the jury to decide.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • leave to appeal granted
  • Recorder's ruling reversed