{"id":5187,"date":"2018-03-07T09:26:59","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:26:59","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2021-09-06T15:11:19","modified_gmt":"2021-09-06T15:11:19","slug":"r-v-horncastle-and-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php","title":{"rendered":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"

R v Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14 (SC)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Summary<\/strong>: Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

R v Horncastle and others1<\/sup> was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence. The appellants claimed that English law on hearsay evidence violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) according to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The UK\u2019s Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Subsequent UK cases have followed the Supreme Court\u2019s approach rather than the ECtHR. Therefore, this tension remains unresolved.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h2>\n

Article 6 ECHR states that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal2<\/sup>, and anyone charged with criminal offences has the right to be informed of the nature of the allegations, have adequate facilities to prepare his defence, and examine any witnesses against him3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Hearsay evidence is \u2018any statement\u2026. other than one made\u2026. by a witness in the course of oral testimony\u20194<\/sup>. This includes evidence given by someone who does not attend the trial and cannot be examined in person. Therefore, this potentially breaches Article 6 ECHR.<\/p>\n

In R v Horncastle, the appellants had been convicted after hearsay evidence was used in their trials. They relied upon Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom5<\/sup>, where the ECtHR held that that hearsay evidence would breach Article 6 ECHR if it was the \u2018sole or decisive reason for conviction.\u2019<\/p>\n

Under English law, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible evidence in court6<\/sup>. However, hearsay evidence may be used where the witness is unavailable and any condition in s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) is satisfied. These are that the witness is dead or too ill to attend court, they are abroad or cannot be found, or they are in fear and the court regards that this will not unduly create unfairness to any party. There is also a general power under s.114 to admit hearsay evidence if a court thinks this would be in the interests of justice. Consequently, UK law conflicted with the ECtHR ruling.<\/p>\n

Under s.2 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), UK courts must take into account prior decisions of the ECtHR. However, courts had differed over what \u2018take into account\u2019 actually meant7<\/sup>. The House of Lords had said that UK courts should follow \u2018clear and constant\u2019 decisions of the ECtHR8<\/sup>, yet the Lords also agreed that the HRA did not change the rules of precedent in the UK9<\/sup>. Therefore, how far UK courts should follow the ECtHR was a \u2018hot topic\u201910<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Facts<\/h2>\n

R v Horncastle concerned several linked appeals. In the first appeal, the defendants were convicted of wounding with intent11<\/sup>. The victim gave a witness statement to the police but died before the trial. The judge allowed the evidence to be admitted under s.116 CJA. In the second appeal the defendants were convicted of kidnapping. The victim gave a statement to the police but did not attend the trial due to fears over her safety. Again, the judge admitted her evidence under s.116 CJA.<\/p>\n

The defendants appealed on the basis that hearsay evidence had been the \u2018sole or decisive\u2019 reason behind their conviction and that this violated Article 6. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/h2>\n

On 9th<\/sup> December 2009 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. Lord Phillips stated that although s.2 Human Rights Act 1998 normally required courts to take into account ECtHR decisions, there would be rare occasions where this would not happen12<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Lord Phillips said that the \u2018sole or decisive\u2019 test had been introduced by the ECtHR in Doorson v The Netherlands13<\/sup> without any explanation of its underlying principles14<\/sup>. He stated that English law already had safeguards in place to protect the innocent and to ensure hearsay evidence was only admitted when it was fair to do so15<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Lord Phillips added that the \u2018sole or decisive\u2019 rule would create practical difficulties in English law in that any piece of evidence might be capable of being \u2018decisive\u201916<\/sup>. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed and the Court declined to follow Al-Khawaja.<\/p>\n

Impact<\/h2>\n

R v Horncastle confirms that ECtHR cases are only persuasive and not binding upon UK courts. However, the Supreme Court did not absolutely reject the authority of Strasbourg17<\/sup>. Instead, it suggested UK courts enter into a dialogue with the ECtHR where it had not taken into account an aspect of UK law18<\/sup>. Critics say this is consistent with s.2 HRA 199819<\/sup>. However, consequently there exist at present two conflicting approaches to dealing with hearsay. Some academics call this \u2018frustrating\u201920<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In R v Ibrahim (Dahir)21<\/sup>the Court of Appeal considered these two approaches but denied there was any difference between them22<\/sup>. The Court held that the \u2018interests of justice\u2019 test in s.114 CJA would help judges decide whether hearsay evidence was \u2018sole or decisive\u2019. However, s.114 by itself does not resolve the conflict between R v Horncastle and Al-Khawaja23<\/sup>. In R v Riat24<\/sup> the Court of Appeal confirmed that, where there was a conflict between the Supreme Court and the ECtHR, UK courts should follow the Supreme Court. Therefore, the conflict of laws still exists.<\/p>\n

Ormerod says that English law contains enough safeguards to prevent hearsay evidence violating Article 6 ECHR. Section 116 CJA states that hearsay may only be used if it is not reasonably practicable to bring the witness before the court either in person or by video link.25<\/sup>. The provisions for witnesses who are in \u2018fear\u2019 include that the court must consider it is in the interests of justice to admit hearsay26<\/sup>. This aims to ensure that any trial is fair and the conviction safe27<\/sup>. When considering if hearsay is in the interests of justice, courts must look at factors listed in s.114(2). Therefore, this is not a blanket power to admit hearsay28<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In Riat the Court quashed one of the convictions where there were inadequate efforts to get fearful witnesses to court29<\/sup>. Also, under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 courts may refuse to admit evidence that is unfairly obtained. This further guards against the unfair use of hearsay evidence30<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court refused to follow the ECtHR, despite s.2 HRA 1998, over the issue of when hearsay evidence should be used. The UK Court pointed out the lack of clarity and practical difficulties in the European approach. Therefore, two alternative approaches exist. However, it is submitted that UK law contains enough safeguards to ensure that the use of hearsay does not violate Article 6 ECHR.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/h2>\n

1<\/sup> 2009<\/sup> UKSC 14 (SC).<\/p>\n

2<\/sup> Article 6(1) ECHR 1950.<\/p>\n

3<\/sup> Ibid, Art 6(3).<\/p>\n

4<\/sup> R v Horncastle para 21<\/sup> per Lord Phillips.<\/p>\n

5<\/sup> (26766\/05) 2009<\/sup> 49 EHRR 1 (ECtHR).<\/p>\n

6<\/sup> D Ormerod, \u2018Case Comment: R v Riat: hearsay \u2013 guidance \u2013 Horncastle \u2013 Al-Khawaja and Tahery Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Hughes L.J., Dobbs J. D.B.E. and Globe J.: July 11, 2012; 2012<\/sup> EWCA Crim 1509\u2033 2013<\/sup> 1 Crim LR 61.<\/p>\n

7<\/sup>C De Than and E Shorts, Human Rights Law (3rd<\/sup> edn, Pearson Education, Harlow 2014) 7.<\/p>\n

8<\/sup> R (on the application of Holding & Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for the Environment 2001<\/sup> UKHL 23 (HL).<\/p>\n

9<\/sup> Kay v Lambeth LBC 2006<\/sup> UKHL 10 (HL).<\/p>\n

10<\/sup> De Than and Shorts (n7) 8.<\/p>\n

11<\/sup> Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.18.<\/p>\n

12<\/sup> R v Horncastle and others 2009<\/sup> UKSC 14 (SC) para 11<\/sup> per Lord Phillips.<\/p>\n

13<\/sup> Ibid, para 38<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

14<\/sup> Ibid, para 86<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

15<\/sup> Ibid.<\/p>\n

16<\/sup> Ibid, para 90<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

17<\/sup> I Loveland, Constitutional, Law, Administrative Law and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction (7th<\/sup> edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015) 676.<\/p>\n

18<\/sup> R v Horncastle and others 2009<\/sup> UKSC 14 (SC) para 11<\/sup> per Lord Phillips.<\/p>\n

19<\/sup> Loveland (n17) 676.<\/p>\n

20<\/sup> F Stark, \u2018Reconciling the irreconcilable?\u2019 2012<\/sup> 71(3) CLJ 476.<\/p>\n

21<\/sup> 2012<\/sup> EWCA Crim 837 (CA).<\/p>\n

22<\/sup> Ibid, para 88<\/sup> per Aikens, LJ.<\/p>\n

23<\/sup> Stark (n20) 477.<\/p>\n

24<\/sup> 2012<\/sup> EWCA Crim 1509 (CA)<\/p>\n

25<\/sup> Ormerod (n6) 61.<\/p>\n

26<\/sup> CJA 2003, s.116(3) and (4).<\/p>\n

27<\/sup> Ormerod (n6) 61.<\/p>\n

28<\/sup> Ibid, 62.<\/p>\n

29<\/sup> R v Riat 2012<\/sup> EWCA Crim 1509 (CA) at para 62<\/sup> per Aiken LJ.<\/p>\n

30<\/sup> Ormerod (n6) 67.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Horncastle and Others 2009 | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Horncastle and Others 2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"R v Horncastle and Others 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\"},\"wordCount\":1262,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\",\"name\":\"R v Horncastle and Others 2009 | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R v Horncastle and Others 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009 | LawTeacher.net","description":"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009","og_description":"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php"},"wordCount":1262,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php","name":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009 | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Case Summary of R v Horncastle and others UKSC 14 (SC). Hearsay evidence and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). R v Horncastle and others was an English legal case concerning the rules on hearsay evidence.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/r-v-horncastle-and-others.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R v Horncastle and Others 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}