Nolan, R v

Nolan, R v

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant's confession, made without a solicitor, was unreliable in light of modern procedural safeguards and new expert psychological evidence, and the jury would have been affected by such evidence had it been available at trial.

Parties
Appellant: Patrick Michael Nolan; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Upon Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Confession Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, False Confessions, Procedural Fairness, Psychological Vulnerability, Right to Legal Representation
Criminal Law Confession Evidence Admissibility of Evidence False Confessions Procedural Fairness Psychological Vulnerability Right to Legal Representation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Michael Nolan

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Upon Reference by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's confession was reliable and admissible under current standards
  2. 2 Whether the conviction is safe in light of new expert evidence and modern procedural safeguards

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant's confession, made without a solicitor, was unreliable in light of modern procedural safeguards and new expert psychological evidence, and the jury would have been affected by such evidence had it been available at trial.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • appellant's conviction for murder quashed