Rehman, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1900 (25 July 2006)

Rehman, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1900 (25 July 2006)

The failure to hold a voir dire was an error but did not render the conviction unsafe because there was no evidence of a significant or substantial breach of the Code, the questioning was routine and not oppressive, and the jury would have convicted only if sure of the appellant's guilt. The shortcomings in the good character direction and the judge's comment did not affect the safety of the conviction.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1900
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: Rehman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Admissibility of Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Good Character Direction, Judicial Directions
Criminal Law Drug Offences Admissibility of Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Good Character Direction Judicial Directions

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Rehman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to hold a voir dire regarding the admissibility of pre-caution questioning under PACE Code C
  2. 2 Whether the judge's good character direction was inadequate
  3. 3 Whether the judge made an inappropriate comment regarding the defendant's silence in interview

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to hold a voir dire was an error but did not render the conviction unsafe because there was no evidence of a significant or substantial breach of the Code, the questioning was routine and not oppressive, and the jury would have convicted only if sure of the appellant's guilt. The shortcomings in the good character direction and the judge's comment did not affect the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed