Ullah, R. v

Ullah, R. v

The trial judge was entitled to admit evidence of the applicant's previous conviction under both section 101(1)(d) and 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it was relevant to propensity and to correct a false impression. The judge properly directed himself and the conviction was sufficiently probative despite its age.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Naveed Ullah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Dishonesty, Admissibility of Previous Convictions
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Propensity Dishonesty Admissibility of Previous Convictions

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Naveed Ullah

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's previous conviction under section 101(1)(d) and 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the previous conviction was sufficiently probative of propensity or dishonesty
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to distinguish between propensity and dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit evidence of the applicant's previous conviction under both section 101(1)(d) and 101(1)(f) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it was relevant to propensity and to correct a false impression. The judge properly directed himself and the conviction was sufficiently probative despite its age.

Court Disposition

application refused