Skip to main content

Previous

The Consumer Rights Act 2015

Next

Reasonable foreseeability in Bolton and Gray

law updates

Craig Beauman keeps you informed of the latest developments in topics across the A-level specifications

In 2010 the appellant was tried and convicted at Crown Court for attempted murder and possession of a firearm. He did not challenge either conviction. Along with these two charges he was also tried on two charges of membership of a ‘proscribed organisation’, specifically the Irish Republican Army (IRA). These latter charges were based on information submitted by the appellant in a failed attempt by him to claim asylum in Sweden after he had escaped custody awaiting trial.

The appellant made an application during the course of the Crown Court trial that the information from the failed asylum attempt should not be admitted in evidence because it should be excluded under s.76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) as ‘having such an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial that it should not be admitted’. He argued that public policy considerations dictated that the information in the asylum application should not be passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service. This was inter alia rejected by the trial judge.

Your organisation does not have access to this article.

Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise

Subscribe

Previous

The Consumer Rights Act 2015

Next

Reasonable foreseeability in Bolton and Gray

Related articles: