||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 28 (May)
||Daniel Reilly (instructed by Thompson & Jackson, Plymouth) for the defendant.
||Guy Opperman (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution.
||5 May 2004
Criminal law - Vagrancy - Found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose - Requirement for evidence - s 4.
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.
- 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