R & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions

R & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions

The district judge was entitled to admit the identification evidence of the witness B despite the breach of Code D, as B knew the appellants well and the lack of an identification procedure did not render the trial unfair; the judge's distinctions between defendants and charges were justified by the evidence; there was no error of law or irrationality in the judge's approach; the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: R and Others; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Breach of Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code D, Discretion to Exclude Evidence, Fair Trial, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Breach of Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code D Discretion to Exclude Evidence Fair Trial Reporting Restrictions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R and Others

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the district judge erred in admitting identification evidence from a single witness despite breach of Code D under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the district judge erred in rejecting submissions of no case to answer
  3. 3 Whether the district judge gave sufficient reasons for distinguishing between defendants and charges

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge was entitled to admit the identification evidence of the witness B despite the breach of Code D, as B knew the appellants well and the lack of an identification procedure did not render the trial unfair; the judge's distinctions between defendants and charges were justified by the evidence; there was no error of law or irrationality in the judge's approach; the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs due to representation orders and lack of means
  • Statutory reporting restrictions remain in place; no further order lifting prohibition