Plunkett & Anor, R v

Plunkett & Anor, R v

The covert recordings were lawfully obtained as the police van was not a private vehicle under RIPA; surveillance was directed and properly authorised; there was no breach of Article 6(3)(b) ECHR; the evidence was properly admitted and did not affect the fairness of the trial; convictions were safe; sentence was appropriate given the gravity and danger posed by the applicants.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Daniel Michael Plunkett; Appellant: James George Plunkett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave to appeal granted but refused on sentence.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Covert Recordings, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (ripa), Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace), Article 6(3)(b) ECHR, Aggravated Burglary, False Imprisonment, Possession of Firearm
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Covert Recordings Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (ripa) Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Article 6(3)(b) ECHR Aggravated Burglary +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Daniel Michael Plunkett

Appellant

James George Plunkett

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether covertly recorded evidence in a police van was admissible under RIPA and PACE
  2. 2 Whether the surveillance was directed or intrusive under RIPA
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' Article 6(3)(b) ECHR rights were breached

Ratio Decidendi

The covert recordings were lawfully obtained as the police van was not a private vehicle under RIPA; surveillance was directed and properly authorised; there was no breach of Article 6(3)(b) ECHR; the evidence was properly admitted and did not affect the fairness of the trial; convictions were safe; sentence was appropriate given the gravity and danger posed by the applicants.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave to appeal granted but refused on sentence.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction granted but appeal dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal against sentence refused.