B(J), R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1036 (14 May 2009)

B(J), R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1036 (14 May 2009)

The co-accused's evidence, while new and substantial, is not demonstrated to be reliable or highly probative due to self-interest, past lying, and implausibility; therefore, the statutory threshold for compelling evidence is not met and the application to quash acquittal is refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 1036
Parties
Applicant: Crown; Respondent: B(J)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, New and Compelling Evidence, Retrial After Acquittal, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy New and Compelling Evidence Retrial After Acquittal Reporting Restrictions

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Applicant

B(J)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new and compelling evidence exists to justify quashing acquittal and ordering retrial under section 76 Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Reliability and probative value of co-accused's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The co-accused's evidence, while new and substantial, is not demonstrated to be reliable or highly probative due to self-interest, past lying, and implausibility; therefore, the statutory threshold for compelling evidence is not met and the application to quash acquittal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Reporting restriction imposed under section 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981; main judgment not to be reported until further order.