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.
(i) That the requirements of Article 24 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) (NI) Order 2004 appear not to have been followed in relation to the evidence of I.
(ii) That the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the approach to be taken on this evidence.
(iii) That the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury in relation to RH's good character.
(iv) That these failures � particularly in relation to the evidence of I, but also when added to the failure in relation to good character � gives rise to a real possibility that the NICA would find RH's conviction unsafe.
This was one of several reasons the court relied on at [17] in that case, which was also a reference from the CCRC, to consider the conviction unsafe and allow the appeal.
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.