H, R. v

H, R. v

The written agreement dated 8th October 2004 created a contractual entitlement to occupation for six months, which was not validly terminated by the respondent's notice. The complainants were 'residential occupiers' under section 1(1) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the time of the alleged offences. The adjournment granted for the prosecution to decide whether to appeal was valid, as Rule 67.2 allows exceptions to the general rule. The judge's ruling was wrong in law and must be reversed.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: H
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ruling below reversed; proceedings not resumed.
Legal Topics
Prosecution Appeals, Protection From Eviction Act, Excluded Tenancy, Excluded Licence, Contractual Entitlement to Occupation, Jurisdiction, Time Limits for Appeal
Criminal Law Land Law Prosecution Appeals Protection From Eviction Act Excluded Tenancy Excluded Licence Contractual Entitlement to Occupation Jurisdiction +1 more

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution appeal given the adjournment granted
  2. 2 Whether the complainants were 'residential occupiers' entitled to protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the time of the alleged offences
  3. 3 Whether the written agreement superseded the oral agreement and created a contractual entitlement to occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The written agreement dated 8th October 2004 created a contractual entitlement to occupation for six months, which was not validly terminated by the respondent's notice. The complainants were 'residential occupiers' under section 1(1) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 at the time of the alleged offences. The adjournment granted for the prosecution to decide whether to appeal was valid, as Rule 67.2 allows exceptions to the general rule. The judge's ruling was wrong in law and must be reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ruling below reversed; proceedings not resumed.

Orders

  • The ruling of the Crown Court judge is reversed.
  • No order for resumption of proceedings or fresh trial; interests of justice do not require further prosecution.