Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge Magistrates

Crown Prosecution Service, R (on the application of) v Uxbridge Magistrates

The refusal to admit hearsay evidence under section 116 was plainly wrong, as the magistrates failed to apply the statutory principles and left the prosecution unable to present its case, warranting quashing of both the refusal and the resulting acquittal.

Parties
Claimant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: Uxbridge Magistrates; Interested Party: Mark Gore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
acquittal quashed
Legal Topics
Adjournment Discretion, Hearsay Evidence, Acquittal Quashing
Criminal Law Judicial Review Adjournment Discretion Hearsay Evidence Acquittal Quashing

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

Uxbridge Magistrates

Defendant

Mark Gore

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrates' refusal to adjourn the trial was plainly wrong
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to admit hearsay evidence under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was correct
  3. 3 Whether the acquittal should be quashed

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to admit hearsay evidence under section 116 was plainly wrong, as the magistrates failed to apply the statutory principles and left the prosecution unable to present its case, warranting quashing of both the refusal and the resulting acquittal.

Court Disposition

acquittal quashed

Orders

  • Decision to refuse hearsay application quashed
  • Acquittal of defendant quashed