Makin, R v

Makin, R v

There was no obligation on the prosecution to disclose the 'question mark' over the witness prior to the appellant's guilty plea, as the material did not go to innocence or guilt and the plea was freely entered. No prosecutorial misconduct was found, and there was no basis to permit the appellant to vacate his plea.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Stephen Christopher Makin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Vacate Guilty Plea
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Vacating Guilty Plea, Prosecutorial Duty, PII (public Interest Immunity), Entrapment
Criminal Law Procedure Disclosure Vacating Guilty Plea Prosecutorial Duty PII (public Interest Immunity) Entrapment

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

Parties

R

Respondent

Stephen Christopher Makin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Vacate Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution had a duty to disclose problems with a witness prior to the appellant's guilty plea
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should be permitted to vacate his guilty plea due to non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution's conduct amounted to misconduct justifying withdrawal of plea

Ratio Decidendi

There was no obligation on the prosecution to disclose the 'question mark' over the witness prior to the appellant's guilty plea, as the material did not go to innocence or guilt and the plea was freely entered. No prosecutorial misconduct was found, and there was no basis to permit the appellant to vacate his plea.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to vacate guilty plea refused
  • No further orders issued