Skip to main content

Search Case Library Notes Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers SQE LNAT

Home›Case Library›Inglis v R.

Criminal

Inglis v R.

[2010] EWCA Crim 2269Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)2010

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF and MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS ____________________

Mr J Sturman QC for the Appellant Mr M Dennis QC and Mr J Hallam for the Respondent Hearing date: 24 November 2009 ____________________

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

Official
Read on National Archives
Official UK government case law repository
Mirror
Read on BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute
Web
Find via Google
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately

More Criminal cases

R v Tahir Yasin & Ors

[2026] EWCA Crim 68

R v Callum McCann

[2026] EWCA Crim 245

Appeal Against Sentence by Otu Nyiam also known as Raymond Nyiam against His Majesty's Advocate (High Court of Justiciary)

[2026] ScotHC 2026hcjac5

R v Nathan John

[2026] EWCA Crim 486

R v ABJ; R v BDN

Appeal against Conviction by Patrick David McGrow against His Majesty's Advocate (High Court of Justiciary)

[2026] ScotHC 2026hcjac13

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

Log in to comment. Discussions are part of the Common Room.

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

caselaw

AI-generated briefs should be verified against the source judgment. This tool is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

[email protected]

StudyCase Library Browse A–Z Notes Flashcards Quizzes Past Papers Verify with Quill LNAT Guides Blog Topics Doctrines

ToolsAll tools OSCOLA Case Finder Glossary Court hierarchy LLB SQE1 Oxford BA

CaselawAbout Methodology How it works Pricing For universities For law firms FAQ Changelog Contact Press

TrustSecurity Accessibility Status Terms Privacy Acceptable use Refunds Sign up

Used by Oxford law students·Powered by Anthropic AI·Cases from The National Archives·Payments by Stripe·GDPR Compliant

SQE revision content is produced by Caselaw independently. Caselaw is not affiliated with the SRA, Kaplan, or any official SQE provider. Refunds · Terms

© 2026 caselaw. All rights reserved.