A Crown Court when sitting as an appellate court must give reasons for its decision. The court reviewed earlier decisions, and concluded that where a court is going to reject expert evidence it must give proper reasons: ‘The appellant was entitled to know the basis upon which the prosecution case had been accepted by the court. In the present case, that involved knowing the process by which the apparently powerful points in favour of the defence had been rejected.’
Judges:
Pill LJ
Citations:
Times 20-Oct-1993, [1994] 99 Cr App R 114, [1994] 1 WLR 98, [1994] 1 All ER 315
Cited by:
Cited – Grant v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Jan-2003
The appellant had been convicted of failing to give a breath test, and of driving with excess alcohol. He had falsely claimed that he had had a drink in the five minutes before being asked to take the test, and said the officer should not have . .
Cited – McCubbin, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Oct-2004
The defendant appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the magistrates to convict him of assault.
Held: No point of law had been raised. The reasons given were adequate. In truth this was a challenge on the facts, and the . .
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86815