dftlp
( User )
|
|
|
|
|
 Re:regina -v- kearley 1992 (Posted on: 2013-03-19 20:20:31)
The case R. v. Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228 went to the House of Lords and was \'allowed\' or successful on counts relating to the hearsay evidence: \"The appeal against conviction was based on an assertion that what personal callers and telephone callers to Kearley \'s house said to police officers at the house was inadmissible as being hearsay. The Court of Appeal decided that the evidence was admissible and provided cogent evidence, together with the quantity of drugs and other items found at appellants house, to establish that he was a drug dealer. Kearley appealed to the House of Lords, and his appeal was successful in that the counts linked to the disputed evidence, i.e. possessing amphetamine with intent to supply and the two counts of possessing amphetamine, were quashed: see R. v. Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228\" You can view the judgement here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/365.html
|
Views: 4927 Replies: 0 |
||
Total posts: 28
  |
| ||
regina -v- kearley 1992 (Posted on: 2013-03-18 10:18:10)
Hello This is a case that was reviewed on appeal in 1992 and relates to the \"hearsay\" rule and admissibility of that rule. The case went to appeal in 1991 and I assume that case appeal was dismissed. The ruling from 1992 states that the appeal (on that occasion) was allowed. Reading the judgement I am a little coinfused as it appears that 3 judges ruled in favour of the appellant (defendant) with 2 against. I am trying to determine that in this particular case the hearsay admissibility rule can be applied to the circumstances as in this particular case. Was the appeal upheld or dismissed and what does \"allowed\" mean? Thanks
|
Views: 1479 Replies: 1 |
||
| Total posts: 1
|
| ||
 Back |
 |
TOP