Girma and Others, Regina v (Rev 1): CACD 15 May 2009

The court asked whether the conviction of a co-defendant was correctly admitted as evidence against her co-accused, and if not what was the effect on the fairness of the trial.
Held: The plea of the co-defendant should not have been admitted. The issue at this trial was as to matters on which the first trial and the plea did not address. However a close analysis of the procedure adopted did not suggest that the verdict was undermined.


[2009] EWCA Crim 912




Terrorism Act 2000 38B(1)(a) 38B(2), Criminal Justice Act 2003 74, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(1) 74(2)


See AlsoRegina v Kempster CACD 1990
Staughton LJ discussed the admission against a defendant of the fact of a co-defendant’s conviction: ‘On the more general question whether, if objection had been taken under section 78, the evidence should have been excluded, we have paid particular . .
CitedSmith, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2007
There had been admissions of pleas of guilty to robbery and the production of a firearm with intent to commit robbery, in the case of a co-accused who was alleged jointly to be involved. The court considered the admissibility of a co-defendant’s . .
CitedSherif and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Nov-2008
The defendants sought to appeal against their sentences for withholding information about terrorism.
Held: The factor determing the sentence was not principally the extent of the information which might have been provided, but rather the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.344017