R v Edwards (Llewellyn)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE BRIDGE
Judgment Date03 February 1978
Judgment citation (vLex)[1978] EWCA Crim J0203-7
Docket NumberNo. 872/A/77
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date03 February 1978

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Knox v Anderton
    • United Kingdom
    • Divisional Court
    • Invalid date
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions v Jane Distill
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 8 September 2017
    ...unanswered" (paragraph 4 of his skeleton argument). He relied, however, on the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v Edwards and Roberts (1978) 67 Cr. App. R. 228, where a prosecution for a public order offence failed because the alleged offence was committed in the defendant's front gard......
  • Michael Edward Bogdal (aka Marjan Tadeusz) v R
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 16 January 2008
    ...on two earlier decisions in cases concerned with the definition of “public place” in other statutes. 17 The first was R v Edwards and Roberts (1978) 67 Cr. App. R. 228. In that case the defendants had engaged in abuse of a householder while standing on his front garden path. They were charg......
  • R v Leroy Lloyd Roberts
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 20 October 2003
    ... ... In our view that was plainly right and is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Edwards and Roberts [1978] 67 Crim App Rep 228, which concerned a similarly worded provision. As Diplock LJ pointed out (p.231), persons such as the postman ... ...
  • Get Started for Free