The effect of fresh evidence was to make the conviction unsafe: ‘ . . the fresh evidence has not ‘demolished’ the prosecution case. But its effect on the safety of this conviction is substantial. We are clear in our view that if the jury had heard that in addition to the weaknesses in the identification evidence, it was a real possibility that DNA from a single ‘unknown male’ had been found in some of the key places where the attacker had ‘mauled’ the victim (in particular, the probable saliva stain on the lower right front of Ms E’s blouse and probable saliva stains on the right and left cups of Ms E’s brassiere as well as other DNA material . . ) this could well have led to the appellant’s acquittal.’
Lady Justice Hallett DBE,
Mr Justice Openshaw,
And,
Mr Justice Spencer
[2012] EWCA Crim 1158
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.459845