Arthur, R. v

Arthur, R. v

The trial judge was entitled to conclude that no irremediable prejudice had been occasioned to the defence and that the fairness of proceedings could be preserved by clear instructions to the jury; therefore, refusal to discharge the jury was justified.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Robert Arthur
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Jury Discharge, Late Disclosure, Fair Trial, Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Jury Discharge Late Disclosure Fair Trial 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Robert Arthur

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late disclosure by the prosecution rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to conclude that no irremediable prejudice had been occasioned to the defence and that the fairness of proceedings could be preserved by clear instructions to the jury; therefore, refusal to discharge the jury was justified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld
  • no discharge of jury