D v DPP [1996] EWHC Admin 242 (18 November 1996)

D v DPP [1996] EWHC Admin 242 (18 November 1996)

Code D did not apply as the identification was accidental and not arranged; the magistrates properly exercised their discretion under Section 78 PACE to admit the identification evidence; and the presumption of doli incapax was rebutted based on the appellant's interview indicating knowledge of wrongdoing.

Citation
[1996] EWHC Admin 242
Parties
Appellant: D; Respondent: DPP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Appeal From Youth Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Doli Incapax, Section 78 PACE, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Youth Offenders
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Doli Incapax Section 78 PACE Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Youth Offenders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D

Appellant

DPP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Appeal From Youth Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Code D of the PACE Codes of Practice applied to the confrontation identification evidence
  2. 2 Whether the discretion under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was properly exercised
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of doli incapax was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

Code D did not apply as the identification was accidental and not arranged; the magistrates properly exercised their discretion under Section 78 PACE to admit the identification evidence; and the presumption of doli incapax was rebutted based on the appellant's interview indicating knowledge of wrongdoing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Legal aid taxation granted to appellant's counsel