M v Regina

M v Regina

Section 78 of PACE does not empower the court to exclude evidence for the purpose of safeguarding a defendant from risks such as violence arising from admissible evidence. The responsibility for assessing and addressing such risks rests with prosecution authorities, not the court. The evidence relating to the applicant's sexual orientation is relevant and admissible, and any flaws in data handling do not warrant exclusion under section 78. The judge was correct to order a preparatory hearing and hold it in private given the exceptional circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: M; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Evidence, Fair Trial, Data Protection, Sexual Orientation Evidence, Human Rights Act Interpretation, Police Evidence Handling
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Data Protection Law Exclusion of Evidence Fair Trial Data Protection Sexual Orientation Evidence Human Rights Act Interpretation +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence relating to the applicant's sexual orientation should be excluded under section 78 of PACE
  2. 2 Whether section 78 of PACE can be interpreted to protect personal safety under the Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether the police's handling of sensitive data breached the Data Protection Act

Ratio Decidendi

Section 78 of PACE does not empower the court to exclude evidence for the purpose of safeguarding a defendant from risks such as violence arising from admissible evidence. The responsibility for assessing and addressing such risks rests with prosecution authorities, not the court. The evidence relating to the applicant's sexual orientation is relevant and admissible, and any flaws in data handling do not warrant exclusion under section 78. The judge was correct to order a preparatory hearing and hold it in private given the exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Evidence relating to applicant's sexual orientation to be admitted