Senior & Anor, R v

Senior & Anor, R v

Although there was a significant and substantial breach of PACE Code C:10.1 in failing to administer a caution before questioning, the breach did not render the proceedings unfair or require exclusion of the evidence under s.78. The questions were routine, the appellants were not prejudiced, and the convictions were safe based on the overall evidence and credibility findings.

Parties
Crown: R; Appellant: Dianne Senior; Appellant: Samantha Senior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace), Duress, Appeals
Criminal Law Drug Offences Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Duress Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Crown

Dianne Senior

Appellant

Samantha Senior

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of PACE Code C:10.1 by failing to administer a caution before questioning the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the evidence obtained during the initial questioning should have been excluded under s.78 of PACE due to unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the convictions were safe given the alleged breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a significant and substantial breach of PACE Code C:10.1 in failing to administer a caution before questioning, the breach did not render the proceedings unfair or require exclusion of the evidence under s.78. The questions were routine, the appellants were not prejudiced, and the convictions were safe based on the overall evidence and credibility findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed