Shields, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2343 (25 October 2011)

Shields, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 2343 (25 October 2011)

The indictment was a nullity as it charged an offence unknown to law, and did not expressly or impliedly include an allegation of breach of a SOPO under the 2003 Act; therefore, the conviction is unsafe and cannot be substituted under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 2343
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: SHIELDS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Defective Indictment, Sexual Offences Prevention Order, Substitution of Verdict, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Defective Indictment Sexual Offences Prevention Order Substitution of Verdict 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

SHIELDS

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment was defective or a nullity
  2. 2 Whether a conviction for breach of a SOPO could be substituted under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  3. 3 Whether the conviction was unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was a nullity as it charged an offence unknown to law, and did not expressly or impliedly include an allegation of breach of a SOPO under the 2003 Act; therefore, the conviction is unsafe and cannot be substituted under section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • appeal allowed
  • no retrial ordered