Arthur, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 1631 (28 June 2018)

Arthur, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 1631 (28 June 2018)

The trial judge was entitled to conclude that no irremediable prejudice had been caused to the defence by the late disclosure, and the issue could be adequately addressed by clear instructions to the jury. The refusal to discharge the jury did not render the conviction unsafe.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Crim 1631
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Robert Arthur
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Jury Discharge, Late Disclosure, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Rape Jury Discharge Late Disclosure Fair Trial

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Robert Arthur

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for rape is unsafe due to the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury after late disclosure by the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to conclude that no irremediable prejudice had been caused to the defence by the late disclosure, and the issue could be adequately addressed by clear instructions to the jury. The refusal to discharge the jury did not render the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed