(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The Board had to remember that the court of appeal had already considered these circumstances, and was much closer to the local situation and had considered the issues. It is not the function of the Board to make itself a second constitution of the Appeal Division and to duplicate its process. Appeal dismissed.
PC Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said: ‘The law is now clearly established and can simply be stated as follows. Where fresh evidence is adduced on a criminal appeal it is for the Court of Appeal, assuming always that it accepts it, to evaluate its importance in the context of the remainder of the evidence in the case. If the court concludes that the fresh evidence raises no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused it will dismiss the appeal. The primary question is for the court itself and is not what effect the fresh evidence would have had on the mind of the jury.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
 UKPC 4, Times 28-Feb-2005,  1 WLR 1660
Cited – Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Hakala CACD 2002
The court discussed the correct approach of the Court of Appeal to new evidence on appeal: ‘However the safety of the appellant’s conviction is examined, the essential question, and ultimately the only question for this Court, is whether, in the . .
Applied – Stafford and others v The State (Note) PC 30-Jul-1998
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Where the matter at issue is the exercise of a discretion by a trial judge. ‘It has been said many times that it is not the function of the Judicial Committee to act as a second Court of . .
Cited – Regina v Ishtiaq Ahmed CACD 6-Dec-2002
Approach to fresh evidence produced on appeal. . .
Cited – Regina v James Hanratty (Deceased) CACD 10-May-2002
Posthumous Appeal – Clear Purpose and Care Needed
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected.
Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and . .
Cited – Bowman, Regina v CACD 2-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction of murder saying that evidence of other pathologists undermined the evidence given by similar experts for the crown.
Held: The court took the opportunity to give guidance on the provision of expert . .
Cited – Hendy, Regina v CACD 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for a brutal murder. He had pleaded diminished responsibility. There were now no papers from the trial. Medical evidence now suggested that at the time of the trial he would have suffered a . .
Cited – Noye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
Cited – Dizaei v Regina CACD 16-May-2011
The defendant had been convicted of misconduct in a public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He now appealed saying that he could demonstrate that the principal witness was dishonest. The prosecution replied that . .
Cited – Ackerley v HM Attorney General of The Isle of Man (Isle of Man) PC 31-Jul-2013
The appellant challenged his conviction for sexual assault, saying that the court had not made sufficient allowance for his autism, and in particular that his confession was actually evidence of echolalia, the repetition of what had been said to . .
Cited – S and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2012
Four defendants appealed against convictions for child sex abuse. The convictions had taken place at a time when current guidance to examining physicians did not apply. In each case the defendants consented to new evidence from the prosecution.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.223015