Bor, R v

Bor, R v

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence, including telephone contact patterns, possession of the escape phone number, and presence near relevant locations, for a reasonable jury to infer the Respondent's involvement in the conspiracy. The judge's ruling that there was no case to answer was not reasonable in light of the evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: BOR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Appeals Against Terminating Rulings, No Case to Answer Submissions, Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Law Conspiracy Appeals Against Terminating Rulings No Case to Answer Submissions Circumstantial Evidence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

BOR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer against the Respondent for conspiracy to escape
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer guilt

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence, including telephone contact patterns, possession of the escape phone number, and presence near relevant locations, for a reasonable jury to infer the Respondent's involvement in the conspiracy. The judge's ruling that there was no case to answer was not reasonable in light of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The trial is to resume with the Respondent back in the dock.