Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sweeney [2005] EWHC 1218 (Admin) (04 February 2005)

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sweeney [2005] EWHC 1218 (Admin) (04 February 2005)

The justices failed to properly consider whether any unfairness to the defendant arose from the breach of PACE Code D, and did not provide adequate reasoning for excluding the identification evidence. The matter must be remitted to a fresh bench for reconsideration.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1218 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Michael Sweeney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence, PACE Code D, Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Damage, Driving Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Exclusion of Evidence PACE Code D Section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Criminal Damage Driving Offences

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Michael Sweeney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to hold an identification parade was a breach of PACE Code D
  2. 2 Whether identification evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 due to unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the justices properly exercised their discretion in excluding identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The justices failed to properly consider whether any unfairness to the defendant arose from the breach of PACE Code D, and did not provide adequate reasoning for excluding the identification evidence. The matter must be remitted to a fresh bench for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to a fresh bench of justices to be reconsidered from the outset.