S, R v

S, R v

The court held that, given the ambiguity in the record and to avoid confusion, the conviction on the lesser alternative count (count 2) should be quashed, leaving only the conviction on the greater count (count 1) to stand.

Parties
Applicant: David Shaw; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal After Refusal by Single Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction on count 2 quashed.
Legal Topics
Double Conviction, Alternative Counts, Arson, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Double Conviction Alternative Counts Arson Appeal Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Shaw

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal After Refusal by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a double conviction on alternative counts constitutes an irregularity requiring correction
  2. 2 Whether the conviction on the lesser alternative count should be quashed when the greater count is subsumed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the ambiguity in the record and to avoid confusion, the conviction on the lesser alternative count (count 2) should be quashed, leaving only the conviction on the greater count (count 1) to stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction on count 2 quashed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Conviction on count 2 quashed.