R v Holland; R v Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1983 |
| Year | 1983 |
| 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
4 cases
-
R v Spencer
...the difference is obvious: see R. v. Price (Herbert) (1969) 1 Q.B. 541; R. v. Riley (1979) 70 Cr. App. R. 1 and R.v. Holland (1983) Crim. L.R. 545. 14"We are in no doubt that the three complainants in the present case were shown to be persons in respect of whom the full warning was 15Mr. ......
-
Carr, Mark Anthony v R
...impugned witness alone; and the danger is, of course, the serious risk that the jury will end by convicting an innocent man (Holland [1983] Crim L R 545 [1983] Crim L R 545).’ 34 With respect to the learned author ofCross, we do not understand Mustill LJ to be saying that the jury must be t......
-
R v Shaun Harper
...impugned witness alone: and the danger is, of course, the serious risk that the jury will end by convicting an innocent man ( Holland [1983] CrimLR 545)." 31 In the next paragraph Mustill LJ said: "Whatever hesitations we have felt in arriving at this conclusion are dispelled by decisions o......
-
Richards (K) v R
...dicta of Carey J.A. applied. (10) R. v. DuncanUNK(1981), 73 Cr. App. R. 359; [1981] Crim. L.R. 560, applied. (11) R. v. Holland, [1983] Crim. L.R. 545, considered. (12) R. v. Ram SaranINTL(1885), I.L.R. 8 All. 306, considered. (13) R. v. RogersUNK(1914), 10 Cr. App. R. 276, considered. (14)......