According to S. 295 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court, when deciding of an appeal against sentence, has to base itself on the lower court's finding of guilt.

In order to assess the extent of D.’s guilt, it had been essential to cast light on the applicant’s involvement.

A finding under this procedure is not a finding of guilt ( R. v. Southwark Crown Court ex parte Koncar [1998] 1 Cr.App.R. 321, DC).

Such a person shall be considered innocent until his or her guilt has been established by a final decision.

Thus, the court finds it established that [the applicant] committed the offence charged and that his guilt in committing it has been substantiated.

    The Court attaches significant weight to the Court of Appeal’s detailed analysis of the role of the evidence of the anonymous witness no. 2 in establishing the applicant’s guilt.

The appeals had failed to provide grounds on which to accept that the findings as to the applicant’s participation in the crime and his guilt were erroneous.

However, it could not see that this was capable of influencing J’s attitude to the sustainability of the victim’s explanation and J’s assessment of the question of guilt in the case.

There is no intimation of the applicant’s guilt or otherwise in the text”.

The binding effect of a conviction was justified by the fact that in such a case a criminal court had established the accused’s responsibility and guilt.

  Mr Baars claimed a total of 205,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for reimbursement of costs and expenses he incurred during the criminal proceedings against him and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary

  The minimum contribution is 25 Guilders and the maximum is 560 Guilders.

question to which extent these measures had incited the accused to the commit the offences at issue was of no importance for the proceedings as it did not concern any fact of relevance for the finding of guilt

[the applicant’s] possible guilt for the offence of dishonesty by a debtor ...

Having heard evidence from both sides as well as the parties' final submissions on the question of the applicant's and his co-defendants' guilt, the court withdrew for deliberations in the course of which

.; rather, the courts had had ample other evidence at their disposal, whose free assessment had resulted in the courts being firmly convinced of the applicant’s guilt.

The court held that there was sufficient evidence of his guilt.

  They submit that the ruling in question clearly does not imply guilt, rather that the applicant's choosing to work among the material of this kind opened himself to the likelihood of prosecution

He argued that there had been insufficient evidence of his guilt.