S, R. v

S, R. v

The judge's failure to expressly address section 114(2) factors did not result in prejudice to the appellant, as no specific difficulty or prejudice was identified. The summary document was admissible in the interests of justice, and the underlying evidence could be proved in full if necessary. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: S; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Preliminary Ruling
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Bad Character Evidence, Similar Fact Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Bad Character Evidence Similar Fact 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Preliminary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in admitting a prosecution-prepared summary document as hearsay under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 114(2) were properly considered before admitting the document

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's failure to expressly address section 114(2) factors did not result in prejudice to the appellant, as no specific difficulty or prejudice was identified. The summary document was admissible in the interests of justice, and the underlying evidence could be proved in full if necessary. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed