RR, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 866 (09 May 2019)

RR, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 866 (09 May 2019)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that the appellant could only be guilty if the means used to persuade the complainant to withdraw her evidence were unlawful or improper. The jury was not properly instructed to consider the propriety of the means, particularly regarding the payment and messages, and it cannot be said the verdict would have been the same with a correct direction.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 866
Parties
Applicant: R. R.; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Jury Directions, Restraining Orders, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Jury Directions Restraining Orders Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. R.

Applicant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to direct the jury to consider the propriety of the means used by the appellant in assessing whether the acts tended to pervert the course of justice and/or were intended to do so.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for perverting the course of justice was unsafe due to inadequate jury directions.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that the appellant could only be guilty if the means used to persuade the complainant to withdraw her evidence were unlawful or improper. The jury was not properly instructed to consider the propriety of the means, particularly regarding the payment and messages, and it cannot be said the verdict would have been the same with a correct direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction on count 3 quashed.
  • Case remitted to Crown Court to consider whether a restraining order should continue under section 5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.