| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2008] All ER (D) 315 (Oct) |
| Court: | Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court |
| Judge: | Pill LJ and Pitchford J |
| Representation | Nicholas Williams (instructed by Martin and Strain, Pwllheli) for the defendant |
| Richard Edwards (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, North Wales) for the Crown | |
| Judgment Dates: | 30 October 2008 |
Catchwords
Criminal law - Harassment - Prima facie case to answer - Defendant making 95 phonecalls to complainant within ninety-minute period - Defendant charged with harassment - Defendant making submission of no case to answer - Justices upholding submission - Whether decision to uphold submission perverse - : ss 1, 2, 7
The Case
Criminal law Harassment. Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court: Where there had been evidence before the justices which amounted to a prima facie case of harassment against the defendant arising out of repeated telephone calls to the complainant, but they had ruled that there was no case to answer, that decision was perverse. A retrial was ordered.
Practice Areas
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- 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
- 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
