Practice and Procedure

R v GAVIN BENNETT (2012)

PUBLISHED June 26, 2012
SHARE

[2012] EWCA Crim 1536

The court had to determine whether inconsistencies in evidence meant that there was no case for the offender to answer and whether it had been appropriate for the judge at a re-trial to allow references to be made to an item which had been destroyed after the first trial. The appropriate sentence for an assault with intent to rob was also considered where the offender had a previous record of similar offences.

CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Lloyd Jones J, Judge Davis QC)

26/06/2012

CATEGORIES