R v Edwards (John)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1991 |
| Date | 16 January 1991 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
63 cases
-
R v Guney
...No criminal or disciplinary proceedings were taken against the three officers. On the basis of these facts and relying on the judgment in R v Edwards [1991] 1 WLR 207 counsel for the Crown concluded that this material had no relevance to the issues in the case. He therefore did not further ......
-
R v D.; R v J
...will do so. For example, they do so from time to time in Home Office references where they may look at a police report. 39 In Edwards (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 48, the Court had regard to the decisions in other cases which had resulted in acquittals in circumstances which cast doubt on the reliab......
-
R v Malik (Waseem)
...Midlands Serious Crime Squad, of which Mr Howkins had been a member. The judge ruled that he was bound by the decision of this court in R v Edwards [1991] 1 WLR 207, (1991) 93 Cr App R 48. Since that decision is of importance it is necessary to make reference to two passages in particular. ......
-
R v Twitchell
...fact that in Campbell (to which we have already referred) Perkins and Brown were interviewing officers. He drew our attention to Edwards 93 Cr App R 48, where Brown was also referred to in the course of the judgment. He also drew our attention to the case of Clark, 18th December 1998. Mr So......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Fair's Fair?
...purposes in criminal cases by s. 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act1984.17 [1943] KB 587.18 [2007] EWCA Crim 597 at [35].19 (1991) 93 Cr App R 48. In Sambasivam vPublic Prosecutor [1950] AC 458 the decision of the PrivyCouncil (including Lords Simonds, MacDermott and Reid) was large......
-
The collateral evidence rule
...the facts of the case, its application cannot be justified. Canada44. See generally per Rolfe B in A-G vHitchcock, above n. 6 at 105.45. [1991] 1 WLR 207.46. Watt (2002: 265).47. Per Baron Alderson in A-G vHitchcock, above n. 6 at 103.48. See per Lord Ellenborough in RvWatson (1817) 32 How ......