Thomas, R v

The conviction is unsafe because it relied heavily on the evidence of police officers later found to be unreliable due to misconduct. The sentence for the subsequent offence should be reduced to reflect the appellant's true criminal record, excluding the quashed conviction.

Parties: Appellant: Michael Ray Thomas; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 May 2003
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome: Appeal against conviction allowed; sentence reduced on subsequent conviction; defendant's costs order granted.
Legal Topics: Robbery, Possession of Firearm With Intent, Appeal, Unsafe Conviction, Sentencing

Criminal Law Robbery Possession of Firearm With Intent Appeal Unsafe Conviction Sentencing

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Michael Ray Thomas

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether the conviction of the appellant is safe in light of subsequent evidence regarding police misconduct
2 Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced given the quashed conviction and its effect on the appellant's criminal record

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction allowed; sentence reduced on subsequent conviction; defendant's costs order granted.

Orders

Conviction on 22 July 1994 quashed.
Sentence for 18 June 2001 conviction reduced from ten years to nine years' imprisonment.