R v N Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hughes |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 1223 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 200706488 C5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 10 June 2008 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
R v FB and Others
...in which they played no part) which refused to endorse a summary approach based upon the judge's perception of the merits of the case. In R v. N Ltd [2008] 2 Cr App R 27, without any evidence being adduced or agreement as to the facts, the judge concluded that no jury, properly directed, co......
-
The State v Peters (a/c Buffy) et Al
...proceedings to challenge a committal proceedings on the basis of insufficiency of evidence, save in the very clearest of cases. 23 And in R v. Plant [2008] EWCA Crim 980 the English Court of Appeal endorsed the principle in Archbold (now Para 4-75 in 2013 ed.), taken from Attorney General's......
-
Re Secretary For Justice
...v Public Prosecutor [1982] AC 136. [69] Ibid., at 151B-H. [70] May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654. [71] Ibid., at 658. [72] R v N Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 2684, at 2689, [73] R v Barker (Note) (1977) 65 Cr App R 287. [74] Ibid., at 288; quoted in Galbraith, at 126. [75] Crosdale v The Queen [1995] ......
-
Re Secretary For Justice
...v Public Prosecutor [1982] AC 136. [69] Ibid., at 151B-H. [70] May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654. [71] Ibid., at 658. [72] R v N Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 2684, at 2689, [73] R v Barker (Note) (1977) 65 Cr App R 287. [74] Ibid., at 288; quoted in Galbraith, at 126. [75] Crosdale v The Queen [1995] ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
DNA Evidence Alone as a Case to Answer
...APPEAL: (1) the Recorder had been wrong to rule that there was nocase to answer before the close of the prosecution evidence (RvNLtd[2009] 1 Cr App R 3 applied);but because the prosecution had consented to this course, it would be wrong to allow the appeal on thisground.(2) There had been n......
-
Voice Recognition Evidence
...APPEAL: (1) the Recorder had been wrong to rule that there was nocase to answer before the close of the prosecution evidence (RvNLtd[2009] 1 Cr App R 3 applied);but because the prosecution had consented to this course, it would be wrong to allow the appeal on thisground.(2) There had been n......