Zarezadeh, R. v

Zarezadeh, R. v

The judge's interventions, though unwise and contrary to best practice, did not cross the threshold required to render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe. The interventions were not so extensive or pointed as to infringe the appellant's right to a fair trial under established legal principles.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: Ryan David Zarezadeh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Intervention, Fair Trial, Duress, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Judicial Intervention Fair Trial Duress Unsafe Conviction

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ryan David Zarezadeh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial interventions during cross-examination rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's interventions, though unwise and contrary to best practice, did not cross the threshold required to render the trial unfair or the conviction unsafe. The interventions were not so extensive or pointed as to infringe the appellant's right to a fair trial under established legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No order as to costs