Thomas Bracher v Crown Prosecution Service
The District Judge erred in treating the complainant’s evidence as recognition rather than hearsay, given the lack of evidence as to the basis for identification and absence of source material. The evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of PACE as unfair, and an identification procedure was required given the circumstances.
- Parties
- Appellant: Thomas Bracher; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Hearsay, Identification Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, PACE Section 78, Recognition Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Bracher
Appellant
Crown Prosecution Service
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the complainant's evidence as to his knowledge of his assailant’s identity was hearsay
- 2 Whether the court should have excluded the complainant’s identification evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or common law
Ratio Decidendi
The District Judge erred in treating the complainant’s evidence as recognition rather than hearsay, given the lack of evidence as to the basis for identification and absence of source material. The evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of PACE as unfair, and an identification procedure was required given the circumstances.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Conviction quashed; evidence of identification excluded under section 78 of PACE.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment