S & H v R

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Appellant

H

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court (preparatory Hearing)

  1. 1 Whether section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is compatible with Article 7 ECHR (certainty of criminal law)
  2. 2 Whether the indictment/count was bad for duplicity
  3. 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