23 August 2010


Fresh from the courts, the WLR Daily brings us details about Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235.

The appeal court said,

"A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Divison) so held when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Gareth Hamer, against his conviction on 12 January 2010 by the Crown Court at Harrow, before Judge Holt and a jury, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

So, what was the point of issuing such a penalty notice?

Oh, and thanks for the clarification Thomas LJ.


  1. hehe.. that's great.. someone should print that quote on a wallposter for lawyers to hang in their offices as a paragon of clarity of legal reasoning! ;-)

  2. The case has been picked up by Law and Layers blog.

    I wonder whether or not these notices are picked up by CRB checked.

    Further, I wonder whether or not there is any abuse in the system - apart from the obvious, if you've got money you're more likely to buy off your liability.