Reader & Ors, R v [1998] EWCA Crim 1226 (7th April, 1998)

Reader & Ors, R v [1998] EWCA Crim 1226 (7th April, 1998)

The judge's directions, including the clarification given in response to the jury's note, correctly stated the law on joint enterprise and possession under section 25. Any misdirection regarding section 34 was not material, as Reader did not rely on facts not mentioned in interview. The convictions were safe.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Crim 1226
Parties
Appellant: Robert Reader; Appellant: Neil Stephen Connor; Appellant: Paul Hart; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Going Equipped for Theft, Joint Enterprise, Burden of Proof, Section 25 Theft Act 1968, Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Criminal Law Going Equipped for Theft Joint Enterprise Burden of Proof Section 25 Theft Act 1968 Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Reader

Appellant

Neil Stephen Connor

Appellant

Paul Hart

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal, Post Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions on the elements of 'going equipped for theft' under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968 were legally correct
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in directing the jury on joint enterprise and possession of tools
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to properly direct the jury regarding Hart's police interview and its evidential status for other defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions, including the clarification given in response to the jury's note, correctly stated the law on joint enterprise and possession under section 25. Any misdirection regarding section 34 was not material, as Reader did not rely on facts not mentioned in interview. The convictions were safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All three appeals are dismissed.