Devani, R v [2007] EWCA Crim 1926 (30 July 2007)

Devani, R v [2007] EWCA Crim 1926 (30 July 2007)

The appellant was not materially disadvantaged by the assertion of legal professional privilege, as she was able to present her defence and received some confirmation from the co-accused. The evidence obtained by prison officers without caution did not render the conviction unsafe, given the appellant's status, the presence of her principal, and the absence of oppression or unfairness. The conviction was therefore safe.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Crim 1926
Parties
Prosecution: R (Crown); Defendant: Maya Devani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Legal Professional Privilege, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Compliance, Prison Regulations
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Legal Professional Privilege Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Compliance Prison Regulations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (Crown)

Prosecution

Maya Devani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assertion of legal professional privilege by a co-accused rendered the trial unfair to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the evidence obtained by prison officers without caution was inadmissible or rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not materially disadvantaged by the assertion of legal professional privilege, as she was able to present her defence and received some confirmation from the co-accused. The evidence obtained by prison officers without caution did not render the conviction unsafe, given the appellant's status, the presence of her principal, and the absence of oppression or unfairness. The conviction was therefore safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld