||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 201 (Jul)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Maurice Kay LJ, Field J and Sir John Alliott
||Phillipa McAtesnay (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Jason Dunn-Shaw (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||14 July 2005
Criminal law - Obstructing course of justice - False allegation to police - Doing an act or acts tending and intended to pervert course of public justice - Whether count on indictment bad for duplicity where a series of acts particularised - Whether necessary for prosecution to specify type of public justice.
In the instant case, it had not been necessary for the prosecution to include separate counts on the indictment for each act alleged to have constituted the series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. Whilst the prosecution had had to prove that the defendant had intended to pervert the course of public justice, it was not necessary for the type of public justice to be proved. Accordingly, the conviction for doing an act or acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice was not unsafe. In all the circumstances, the sentence of two-and-a-half years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, and would be substituted with a period of twelve months.
- 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