Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES (Lord Judge) MR JUSTICE PENRY-DAVEY and MR JUSTICE IRWIN ____________________
Computer Aided Transcription by Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company) 165 Fleet Street, London EC4 Telephone No: 020 7404 1400; Fax No 020 7404 1424 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr I Glen QC and Mr M Dacey appeared on behalf of the Appellant Mr N M Peters QC and Mr S Rose appeared on behalf of the Crown ____________________
In his oral directions the judge said this -- and there is one difference between the text he had prepared and handed to the jury and the direction he gave to them orally:
As far as we can gather, no one took any point about the way in which that direction was formulated, although, looking back at it now, the word "the" before "real" in that text was inappropriate. The verbal direction to the jury should have reflected the written suggested direction by the Judicial Studies Board and "the" should have been replaced by "a". In the context of this case there is nothing in the distinction.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.