R v Paraskeva
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE O'CONNOR,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Crim J1202-13 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2518/B/82 |
| Date | 02 December 1982 |
[1982] EWCA Crim J1202-13
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)
Lord Justice O'Connor
and
Mr. Justice Talbot
No. 2518/B/82
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. M. LAMB appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. P. BUCKNELL appeared on behalf of the Crown.
On 28th April 1982 at the Crown Court at Acton, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and fined £400. The jury was discharged from returning a verdict on count 1 of the indictment, robbery.
He appeals against conviction by leave of the single Judge.
The point is a very short one, namely that the only prosecution witness on the facts, with which I will deal in a moment, was a man who had got a conviction for dishonesty, namely for theft, back in 1975. This fact was not known to the solicitor and counsel for the defence, and by an error it was not revealed to them by counsel for the prosecution, as he frankly acknowledged. It is said that this was an irregularity and a material one in the present case.
The prosecution arose out of an incident which occurred on 14th October 1981. The appellant owned premises in Harlesden High Street and on the ground floor he had a hair dressing business. Two other floors had been converted into flats. The complainant, a man named Brimson, was a Health Inspector for Brent Council. He had been there, on the evidence, a number of times in connection with some work which the Council required to be done on the premises. He came on 14th October at about 11 o'clock to inspect the premises. According to him, after the inspection had occurred, the appellant lost his temper and attacked him. He seized him and butted him in the face, so that he had bruises and two loosened teeth. He then seized his briefcase, kicked him in the thigh in order to make him lose his grip and made off with the briefcase down the street. That was the last Mr. Brimson had seen of the briefcase. When the appellant came back he was asked for it, and he said "Go away". According to the complainant he then went to the police and went to hospital at about 2.30 and the injuries were found, and he made his complaint to the police.
The police came to interview the appellant who flatly denied that any incident had taken place. Thus it was that at the trial the complainant gave his evidence to the effect which I have just set out, and the appellant and his father, who said he was there and was a witness, both simply said it had not happened,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
DPP v Kelly
...(1955) 39 Cr. App. R. 100. R. v. Parks [1961] 1 W.L.R. 1484; [1961] 3 All E.R. 633; (1962) 46 Cr. App. R. 29. R. v. Paraskeva (1982) 76 Cr. App. R. 162. R. v. Knightbridge Crown Court, ex parte Goonatilleke [1986]; Q.B.I; [1985] 3 W.L.R. 553; [1986] 2 All E.R. 498. (1985) 81 Cr. App. R. 31.......
-
DPP v Anthony McCarthy and Others
...v Collister and Warhurst (1955) 39 Cr App R 100, R v Parks [1961] 1 WLR 1484, R v Sweet-Escott (1971) 93 Cr App R 316, R v Paraskeva (1982) 76 Cr App R 162 and People (DPP) v Cronin (No 2) [2006] IESC 9, [2006] 4 IR 329 considered; People (DPP) v Eamon Kelly [1987] IR 596 and People (DPP)......
-
Health Services Executive v Judge White & Others (notice parties)
...3 IR 1, DPP v Kelly [1987] IR 596, R v Collister and Warhurst (1995) 39 Cr App R 100, R v Parks [1961] 1 WLR 1484, R v Paraskeva (1982) 76 Cr App R 162, Braddish v DPP [2001] 3 IR 127, Dunne v DPP [2002] 2 IR 305, Scully v DPP [2005] IESC 11 [2005] 1 IR 242, McFarlane v DPP [2006] IESC 11 [......
-
Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 13)
...proposition that the prosecution must disclose to the defence any convictions of prosecution witnesses of which the prosecution is aware: R v Paraskava (1983) 76 Cr App R 162. This obligation must, in principle, extend, in my opinion, also to any information in the possession of the prosecu......