Smith, R v

Smith, R v

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant was deprived of a good character direction due to an erroneous antecedent report, and it cannot be said that this omission would certainly have made no difference to the outcome.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Smith; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed, conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Dishonesty Offences, Good Character Direction, Unsafe Conviction, Misleading Antecedent Report
Criminal Law Dishonesty Offences Good Character Direction Unsafe Conviction Misleading Antecedent Report

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Smith

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to give a good character direction rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the antecedent report error deprived the appellant of a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the appellant was deprived of a good character direction due to an erroneous antecedent report, and it cannot be said that this omission would certainly have made no difference to the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, conviction quashed

Orders

  • conviction quashed
  • no retrial ordered