R v Roberts (Stephen)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1997 |
| Year | 1997 |
| 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 3-day 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
Start Your 7-day Trial
4 cases
-
Joseph King Craig Paul Provan (1st Appellant 2nd Appellant) v R
... ... was drawn to some of the leading authorities in this area, including Jelen and Katz [1990] 90 Cr App R 456 ; Bailey and Smith [supra]; Roberts [1997] 1 Cr App R 217 ; and Grant [2005] 2 Cr App R 28 ... The cases in which evidence has been excluded usually involved the exposure of the ... ...
-
R v Allan (Richard Roy)
... ... 120 We were referred by both counsel to R v Roberts [1997] 1 Cr App R 217 ... The Court in that case cast doubt on the proposition that there is a "hard and fast distinction" between mere eavesdropping ... ...
-
Dill v R
...in the judgment: BaileyUNK (1993) 97 Cr App R 365 Dearing v RBDLR [1986] Bda LR 27 Jelen & KatzUNK (1990) 90 Cr App R 456 RobertsUNK [1997] 1 Cr App R 217 Abstract: Admissibility of confessions RULING of GROUND, 1. This matter was tried between 24th November and 16th December 2009. At the e......
-
The Queen v Dill
...had a strong motive for getting the defendant to confess in order to exculpate himself, such a motive was not fatal in Roberts [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 217 (CA), and I do not see why it should be here. I do not think that Lightbourne could be described as a police stooge, and he had been given ......