Labastide and Carty, Regina v: CACD 19 Nov 2008

The defendants appealed their conviction for murder. They were said to have been members of a gang, and were present and armed and part of the joint enterprise leading to the murder. The convictions were based on identification evidence from witnesses who knew them. They complained that they had not been allowed to present certain evidence on the ground that it was misleading and invited the jury to speculate.
Held: The evidence that a co-accused was injured was to be used only as a wholly speculative and this was an impermissible exercise. The appeal of Labastide failed. As to Carty, there were weaknesses in the identification evidence but not to an extent to make it inadmissible. There had been no misdirection. Carty’s appeal failed.


Maurice Kay LJ, King J, Sweeney J


[2008] EWCA Crim 2564




England and Wales


CitedRegina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.277892