R, R. v

R, R. v

The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the intermediary issue as it does not go to the root of the case under section 31(3)(b); the judge's ruling on admissibility of PACE interview evidence was properly reasoned, the applicant was not mentally vulnerable, and the Crown discharged its burden, so leave to appeal is refused.

Parties
Applicant: R; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial, Mental Vulnerability, Intermediary Provision, Confession Reliability
Criminal Law Human Rights Admissibility of Evidence Fair Trial Mental Vulnerability Intermediary Provision Confession Reliability

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Applicant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the provision of an intermediary throughout trial
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in admitting PACE interview evidence given alleged mental vulnerability and breach of PACE Code C

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on the intermediary issue as it does not go to the root of the case under section 31(3)(b); the judge's ruling on admissibility of PACE interview evidence was properly reasoned, the applicant was not mentally vulnerable, and the Crown discharged its burden, so leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

application dismissed