Johnson, R v [1999] EWCA Crim 41 (14th January, 1999)

Johnson, R v [1999] EWCA Crim 41 (14th January, 1999)

The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution did not challenge critical defence evidence, rendering their case untenable. The trial judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury after the defence evidence fundamentally changed the evidential landscape.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Crim 41
Parties
Appellant: Miss Johnson; Respondent: Crown; Co Accused: Robin Hicks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Unsafe Conviction, Jury Direction, No Case to Answer
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Unsafe Conviction Jury Direction No Case to Answer

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Miss Johnson

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Robin Hicks

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for perverting the course of justice was safe given unchallenged defence evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury after the defence evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the prosecution did not challenge critical defence evidence, rendering their case untenable. The trial judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury after the defence evidence fundamentally changed the evidential landscape.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • conviction quashed