RT & Anor, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 155 (13 February 2020)

RT & Anor, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 155 (13 February 2020)

The trial judge was entitled to continue the trial despite the incomplete cross-examination of a vulnerable witness because the overall fairness of the proceedings was preserved through partial cross-examination, admission of relevant material, corroborative evidence, and clear jury directions on the limitations of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Crim 155
Parties
Appellant: RT; Appellant: Paul Stuchfield; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Vulnerable Witnesses, Cross Examination, Abuse of Process, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery
Criminal Law Fair Trial Vulnerable Witnesses Cross Examination Abuse of Process Conspiracy to Commit Robbery

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

RT

Appellant

Paul Stuchfield

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was entitled to continue the trial after a key prosecution witness refused to continue giving evidence, resulting in incomplete cross-examination for one appellant and no cross-examination for the other.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions were unsafe due to the inability to fully test the evidence of a vulnerable witness.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to continue the trial despite the incomplete cross-examination of a vulnerable witness because the overall fairness of the proceedings was preserved through partial cross-examination, admission of relevant material, corroborative evidence, and clear jury directions on the limitations of the witness's evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld for both appellants