B(J), R. v

B(J), R. v

The evidence of the co-accused, while new and substantial, is not shown to be reliable or compelling due to his self-interest, the circumstances of his agreement, and his history of lying. Therefore, the statutory requirements for quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial are not met.

Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: B(J)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Retrial After Acquittal, New and Compelling Evidence, Section 76 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Retrial After Acquittal New and Compelling Evidence Section 76 Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

B(J)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new evidence against B(J) is 'new and compelling' within the meaning of section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to quash the acquittal and order a retrial

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the co-accused, while new and substantial, is not shown to be reliable or compelling due to his self-interest, the circumstances of his agreement, and his history of lying. Therefore, the statutory requirements for quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial are not met.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The Crown's application to quash the acquittals is refused.
  • Reporting restrictions are imposed on the main judgment pursuant to section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 until further order.