SL, R. v

SL, R. v

Care proceedings are not criminal proceedings and findings therein are not binding or conclusive in criminal trials; the criminal court retains jurisdiction to determine guilt, and prosecution after care proceedings does not constitute abuse of process. The evidence relating to injuries, including the anal fissure, was admissible and the appellant had a case to answer for manslaughter.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Double Jeopardy, Care Proceedings, Manslaughter, Evidence Admissibility
Criminal Law Family Law Child Protection Abuse of Process Double Jeopardy Care Proceedings Manslaughter Evidence Admissibility

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

SL

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal prosecution after adverse findings in care proceedings constitutes abuse of process
  2. 2 Admissibility of evidence from care proceedings in criminal trial
  3. 3 Whether inconsistent findings between civil and criminal courts undermine public confidence

Ratio Decidendi

Care proceedings are not criminal proceedings and findings therein are not binding or conclusive in criminal trials; the criminal court retains jurisdiction to determine guilt, and prosecution after care proceedings does not constitute abuse of process. The evidence relating to injuries, including the anal fissure, was admissible and the appellant had a case to answer for manslaughter.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence upheld
  • No abuse of process found