Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sweeney

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sweeney

The justices failed to properly consider whether the breach of Code D resulted in unfairness to the defendant under section 78. They did not address countervailing factors or provide sufficient reasoning for exclusion. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to a fresh bench for reconsideration.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Michael Sweeney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
appeal allowed; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice D, Section 78 Discretion
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice D Section 78 Discretion

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

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Appeal From Magistrates' Court to High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of Code D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in not holding an identification parade
  2. 2 Whether the justices properly exercised their discretion under section 78 to exclude identification evidence
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of identification evidence was justified in law

Ratio Decidendi

The justices failed to properly consider whether the breach of Code D resulted in unfairness to the defendant under section 78. They did not address countervailing factors or provide sufficient reasoning for exclusion. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to a fresh bench for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The matter is remitted to a fresh bench of justices to be reconsidered from the outset.