A, R. v

A, R. v

The judge's ruling that there was no case to answer was reasonable because the prosecution failed to prove criminal conduct by AD, which was necessary to establish that the property was criminal. The absence of direct evidence or conviction of AD meant the prosecution case was too tenuous to go before a jury.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against No Case to Answer Ruling
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Corruption, Admissibility of Evidence, No Case to Answer
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Corruption Admissibility of Evidence No Case to Answer

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

A

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against No Case to Answer Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer against A
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit AD's statement as evidence
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved criminal conduct by AD sufficient to establish criminal property

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's ruling that there was no case to answer was reasonable because the prosecution failed to prove criminal conduct by AD, which was necessary to establish that the property was criminal. The absence of direct evidence or conviction of AD meant the prosecution case was too tenuous to go before a jury.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • leave to appeal granted
  • jury discharged