S & H v R
Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, as interpreted, is not vague or uncertain and is compatible with Article 7 ECHR. The indictment is not bad for duplicity as the legislation permits multiple offences to be specified. Evidence of bad character relating to customers was admissible as it had to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged.
- Parties
- Appellant: S; Appellant: H; Respondent: The Crown
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court (preparatory Hearing)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Inchoate Offences, Assisting or Encouraging Crime, Serious Crime Act 2007 Section 46, European Convention on Human Rights Article 7, Abuse of Process, Bad Character Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S
Appellant
H
Appellant
The Crown
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court (preparatory Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is compatible with Article 7 ECHR (certainty of criminal law)
- 2 Whether the indictment/count was bad for duplicity
- 3 Whether the judge erred in admitting evidence of bad character under section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Ratio Decidendi
Section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, as interpreted, is not vague or uncertain and is compatible with Article 7 ECHR. The indictment is not bad for duplicity as the legislation permits multiple offences to be specified. Evidence of bad character relating to customers was admissible as it had to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted (unopposed)
- Principal grounds of appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment