Harrison, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 18 (02 February 2006)

Harrison, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 18 (02 February 2006)

Refusal to adjourn did not render trial unfair as material was previously considered and witnesses were vulnerable; indictment did not require interference with both witnesses; exclusion of business document was proper; judge's summing up and directions were adequate; sentence of 10 years was excessive and costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 18
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, Fair Trial, Adjournment, Admissibility of Evidence, Sentencing, Costs Order
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice Fair Trial Adjournment Admissibility of Evidence Sentencing Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Harrison

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to grant adjournment denied fair trial under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether indictment required proof of interference with both witnesses
  3. 3 Admissibility of business document under Section 24 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to adjourn did not render trial unfair as material was previously considered and witnesses were vulnerable; indictment did not require interference with both witnesses; exclusion of business document was proper; judge's summing up and directions were adequate; sentence of 10 years was excessive and costs order was unsupported by evidence of means.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; appeal against sentence allowed.

Orders

  • Sentence of 10 years imprisonment quashed and substituted with 6 years imprisonment.
  • Order for payment of £23,433 prosecution costs quashed.