| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2004] All ER (D) 28 (May) |
| Court: | Administrative Court |
| Judge: | Moses J |
| Representation | Daniel Reilly (instructed by Thompson & Jackson, Plymouth) for the defendant. |
| Guy Opperman (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 5 May 2004 |
Catchwords
Criminal law - Vagrancy - Found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose - Requirement for evidence - s 4.
The Case
Factual conclusions were a matter for the district judge, which had to be based upon primary evidence. Evidence adduced by the prosecution was wholly insufficient to support the judge's conclusion that a garden was enclosed for the purposes of s4 of the 1824 Act. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal by way of case stated was allowed.
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
