About: R v B

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: R v B Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/7RiCvDC4ra

R. v B. [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 88, CA was a case in which the undisclosed party (B) was charged with an indecent assault on two of his grandsons. The evidence introduced in this case was pornographic magazines that belonged to the accused B. The House of Lords held this evidence to be inadmissible in suggesting that B had committed the assault. The magazines along with other evidence were not enough to convict B as they did not meet the proper criteria for the admissibility of what is known as similar fact evidence.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	R v B (en)
rdfs:comment	R. v B. [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 88, CA was a case in which the undisclosed party (B) was charged with an indecent assault on two of his grandsons. The evidence introduced in this case was pornographic magazines that belonged to the accused B. The House of Lords held this evidence to be inadmissible in suggesting that B had committed the assault. The magazines along with other evidence were not enough to convict B as they did not meet the proper criteria for the admissibility of what is known as similar fact evidence. (en)
dct:subject	1997 in British law 1997 in case law House of Lords cases
Wikipage page ID	20633457 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1082953649 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	1997 in British law House of Lords Indecent assault Criminal Appeal Reports 1997 in case law Pornographic magazine Admissible evidence Court of Appeal of England and Wales Evidence (law) House of Lords cases
sameAs	R v B R v B R v B
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Italic_title dbt:More_citations_needed dbt:Reflist dbt:Use_dmy_dates
has abstract	R. v B. [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 88, CA was a case in which the undisclosed party (B) was charged with an indecent assault on two of his grandsons. The evidence introduced in this case was pornographic magazines that belonged to the accused B. The House of Lords held this evidence to be inadmissible in suggesting that B had committed the assault. The magazines along with other evidence were not enough to convict B as they did not meet the proper criteria for the admissibility of what is known as similar fact evidence. As a result, in this case it is shown that evidence which only highlights the accused in question to be of a "bad disposition" will be deemed inadmissible. This is because, for evidence to be admissible, it must do more than just merely suggest that the person has the propensity to commit the charged crime. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:R_v_B?oldid=1082953649&ns=0
page length (characters) of wiki page	1388 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:R_v_B
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of	English criminal law R. v. B. R. v B.
is Wikipage redirect of	R. v. B. R. v B.
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:R_v_B

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 56 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software