PT v R [2013] EWCA Crim 2398 (20 December 2013)

PT v R [2013] EWCA Crim 2398 (20 December 2013)

The Court held that, despite the exceptional delay, the trial judge correctly refused a stay as the disadvantages to the defence were not such as to render a fair trial impossible; the judge properly exercised discretion in admitting the challenged evidence and gave adequate directions to the jury to address the risks of prejudice; and the convictions were safe.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 2398
Parties
Appellant: PT; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Fair Trial, Delay in Prosecution, Admissibility of Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Confessions, Directions to Jury
Criminal Law Abuse of Process Fair Trial Delay in Prosecution Admissibility of Evidence Bad Character Evidence Confessions Directions to Jury

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PT

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay of over 33 years rendered a fair trial impossible and required a stay for abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of previous allegations for which the appellant had been acquitted
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of cell confessions where most witnesses were deceased

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, despite the exceptional delay, the trial judge correctly refused a stay as the disadvantages to the defence were not such as to render a fair trial impossible; the judge properly exercised discretion in admitting the challenged evidence and gave adequate directions to the jury to address the risks of prejudice; and the convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld