CrimeLine
  • About Us
  • Subscribe
  • Login/Out
    • LOGIN
    • LOGOUT
    • Change Password (when logged in)
  • MAIN MENU
  • NEWS CENTRE
    • New Cases & Developments Main Feed
    • Daily Crime News
    • Regulatory Law Updater
    • New Legislation
    • Extradition Cases
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • GDPR
  • Jobs
  • CrimeLine Assist
    • My Tickets
    • Submit Ticket
  • Legislation Service
  • CPD
    • CPD Content
    • View My CPD Record
  • Procedure Rules
  • Bookmarks
  • Quick Links (Statutes)
    • Sentencing Act 2020
    • PACE 1984
    • MCA 1980
    • Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Sinfield [2021] EWCA Crim 1227

  • Sinfield [2021] EWCA Crim 1227

      • Blog
    Please log in to view content

  • Christou [1992] QB 979; [1992] 4 All ER 559; [1992] 95 CrAppR 264

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Quinn [1990] Crim LR 581

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Raphaie [1996] Crim LR 812

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Khan [1993] Crim LR 54

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Wright [1994] Crim LR 55

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • McCarthy [1996] Crim LR 818

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Stewart [1995] Crim LR 500

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Nathaniel (1995) 2 Cr App R 565

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Khan [1995] QB 27; [1995] 1 Cr App R 242; [1994] 4 All ER 426; [1994] 3 WLR 899

      • Latest
    Please log in to view content

  • Luke Martin [2019] EWCA Crim 1564

      • Latest

    The sole ground pursued in this renewed application was that the judge was wrong not to exercise his discretion under s78 of PACE to exclude identification evidence. The defence argued that there was reason to think the identification was not the result of an unaided recollection. The complainant’s mother had…

(c) CrimeLine. Terms and Conditions of Website Use Accessibility Statement