Johnson, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 102 (24 October 2000)

Johnson, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 102 (24 October 2000)

The conviction is unsafe because the identification evidence was unreliable, the appellant was unrepresented, and the jury was not properly directed according to standards now required for identification evidence.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Crim 102
Parties
Appellant: Harold Robert Johnson; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission to Court of Appeal
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Appeal Standards, Self Representation
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Unsafe Conviction Appeal Standards Self Representation

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

Parties

Harold Robert Johnson

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellant was unsafe due to the quality of identification evidence and lack of proper jury directions as required by current standards.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the identification evidence was unreliable, the appellant was unrepresented, and the jury was not properly directed according to standards now required for identification evidence.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • The conviction of Harold Robert Johnson is quashed.