R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{bailii|" to "{{#bailii:") |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
[[Media:R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473.pdf|Transcript]] | [[Media:R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473.pdf|Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:Judgment available on MHLO]] | |||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:Transcript]] | [[Category:Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:2011 cases]] | [[Category:2011 cases]] | ||
[[Category:Restriction order cases]] | [[Category:Restriction order cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:10, 28 May 2020
On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]
Related judgments
R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 2473
Other
Date: 20/10/11
Before: Hughes LJ, Cranston and Hickinbottom JJ (judgment delivered extempore)
John Lockhurst (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
Henry Hughes (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Citations
R v Groucher (2011) All ER (D) 164 (Oct)
External link
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: