Shields, R. v

Shields, R. v

The indictment was a nullity as it charged an offence unknown to law, and the requirements for substitution of a conviction under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were not met because the indictment did not expressly or impliedly include an allegation of breach of a SOPO under the 2003 Act.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: David James Shields
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Defective Indictment, Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo), Sex Offender Order (soo), Substitution of Conviction, Section 3 Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Defective Indictment Sexual Offences Prevention Order (sopo) Sex Offender Order (soo) Substitution of Conviction Section 3 Criminal Appeal Act 1968

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

David James Shields

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment was a nullity for charging an offence unknown to law
  2. 2 Whether a conviction for breach of a SOPO could be substituted under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was a nullity as it charged an offence unknown to law, and the requirements for substitution of a conviction under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were not met because the indictment did not expressly or impliedly include an allegation of breach of a SOPO under the 2003 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No retrial ordered