A v B (Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of evidence) [2013] UKEAT 0025_13_1902 (19 February 2013)

A v B (Practice and Procedure : Admissibility of evidence) [2013] UKEAT 0025_13_1902 (19 February 2013)

The employment judge correctly applied the statutory test under section 7(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, properly balanced the relevance of the conviction against potential prejudice, and was entitled to conclude that justice could not be done without admitting the evidence of the spent conviction.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0025_13_1902
Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Spent Convictions, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Race Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Evidence Admissibility of Spent Convictions Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Race Discrimination Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment judge was correct to admit evidence of the employee's spent conviction under section 7(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the employment judge properly balanced the relevance of the conviction against its prejudicial effect
  3. 3 Whether the admission of the conviction was necessary for justice to be done

Ratio Decidendi

The employment judge correctly applied the statutory test under section 7(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, properly balanced the relevance of the conviction against potential prejudice, and was entitled to conclude that justice could not be done without admitting the evidence of the spent conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The employment judge's ruling admitting evidence of the spent conviction stands.