In R v. Hanson (2005) 1WLR 3169, financial theft of an apartment above a bar was the allegation. It also had a clear connection to Hanson, a previous offender previously found guilty of theft, aggravated carjacking, home invasion, and dishonesty. The court claimed that the robbery conviction was incorrect and that aggravated vehicle taking shouldn't be considered to be theft. Being convicted of theft and burglary for the current offense is admissible due to the multiple robbery convictions. (Hannibal 35). In this case, the statement “judiciary interpretation is unlikely to present a significant threat to rights and liberties of criminal defendants” is unjustified in light of the decision reached because regardless of the nature of theft, evidence on previous related offenses should not be admissible so long as the crimes are related.
On the other hand, the charges in R v M (2006) were sexual assault with weapon, incest, and sexual assault and the offender was sentenced to 25 years in prison with the option of appeal. After the appeal, the sentence was reduced to 18 years and 8 months although according to Ceiling, it should have been 20 years max as this was not a life sentence (Casebrief.me). The issue at hand is to disregard that a legal ceiling exists on fixed terms under the Criminal Code. The statement in this case is unjustified in light of the decision reached because through legal ceilings, criminals are getting shorter terms for serious crimes.
The court dismissed the admissibility of the evidence provided in the R v Highton (2005) EWCA Crim 1985 case against the defendant because his character did not seem to fit into the offenses that the defendant had been accused of. The evidence provided was also admissible on grounds of relevance and to this effect, a distinction between the admissibility of the provided evidence and its use once it was admitted by the court is evidence (R V Highton R V Van-Nguyen R V Carp). The statement to be proved in this case is justified in light of the decision reached because judicial interpretation can help extradite a innocent individual.
Works Cited
Casebrief.me. "R V M (C.A) | Case Brief Summary". Casebrief.me. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 May 2017.
Hannibal. Update 5-Warning This Is A Big One!. 1st ed. New York: SAGE, 2005. Web. 6 May 2017.
R V Highton R V Van-Nguyen R V Carp. 2017. Print.
