Carmine Salamone v Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Decision date: 15 June 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 230 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: medium

This appeal challenges the First-tier Tribunal's admission of the appellant's 2013 spent convictions when imposing a five‑year banning order following 2024 convictions for breaches of prohibition orders. The central issue was whether the FTT properly admitted the spent convictions under s.7(3) Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (i.e. whether justice could not be done without them); the FTT admitted and relied on the 2013 convictions. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that, if the 2013 convictions were inadmissible, a shorter ban might have been appropriate.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

From the judgment as recorded in the notes, s.7(3) RORA permits admission of spent convictions only as a narrow exception where the decision‑maker is satisfied that justice cannot be done without them; the burden lies on the party seeking admission to demonstrate that the s.7(3) test is met and the tribunal must identify the specific issues to which the spent conviction evidence is relevant.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The notes record statements that government guidance discouraging taking spent convictions into account is material but does not render admission irrational in appropriate cases, and that the timing of when convictions become spent (and whether they were live when an application was made) are relevant considerations in deciding admission—these appear to be obiter observations rather than binding ratio.

Warning

- The chunk contains formatting noise and repeated statutory references but the legal narrative and factual chronology are clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML