Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Held: ‘ the structure of the summing up in this case was unimpeachable. In a wholly conventional manner the judge gave the jury the directions on the law that had been reduced to writing and discussed with counsel in advance; he summarised the facts in the case at some considerable and appropriate length; and, finally, he summarised the arguments of the parties. The judge emphasised a number of times that the facts were for the jury. He instructed them to ignore any comments on his part if they did not agree with them. He did not refer, and he was not required to refer, to each and every point made by counsel for the prosecution or the accused. We reject the suggestion that the summing up was unbalanced in favour of the prosecution.’
As to the evidence of similar recent local shootings: ‘We consider that the shooting of Arslan on 31 July 2009 and the evidence of the attempted murders of Coban and Demir on 30 September 2009 was admissible because it was relevant to the facts of the present case. Although the prosecution could prove the charges without introducing this material, it fell within paragraph 98 (a) because this evidence of misconduct was directly relevant to it. These events were closely, indeed inextricably, linked to the facts of the present murder. As described above, what otherwise might have been viewed as a random or inexplicable shooting, was on the prosecution case a vital part of the ongoing feud between two Turkish drug gangs in North London – the Tottenham Turks and the Hackney Turks – and most particularly the series of tit-for-tat stabbings and shootings in the Autumn of 2009. We agree with Stanley Burnton LJ that section 98(a) includes no necessary temporal qualification, and it applies to evidence of incidents whenever they occurred so long as they are to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged. That will involve a highly fact-specific question.’
Fulford LJ, Stewart, Edis JJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 1350
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Singh-Mann and Others v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to defraud, attacking the judge’s summing up.
Held: The appeals failed.
Fulford LJ said, as to where the accused had not given evidence: ‘On the basis of those authorities, . .
Cited – Regina v Sharp CACD 1994
The defendant appealed complaining of the judge’s interference in his cross-examination.
Held: ‘In general, when a cross-examination is being conducted by competent counsel a judge should not intervene, save to clarify matters he does not . .
Cited – Tirnaveanu, Regina v CACD 24-May-2007
The defendant had been convicted of posing as a solicitor in order to commit frauds. He appealed, saying that the court had wrongly admitted evidence of his dealings with illegal immigrants.
Held: The evidence admitted was highly relevant as . .
Cited – Sule v Regina CACD 23-May-2012
################
Stanley Burnton LJ concluded: ‘In our judgment, the evidence of the three incidents was evidence that was alleged to do with the evidence of the murder in question. The words of the statute are straightforward, and clearly . .
Cited – McNeill, Regina v CACD 6-Nov-2007
The court considered the admission of bad character evidence under the 2003 Act which was not clear. Rix LJ said: ‘In our judgment, however, the words of the statute ‘has to deal with’ are words of prima facie broad application, albeit constituting . .
Cited – Humphris, Regina v CACD 19-Jul-2005
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual and other serious assaults. He complained of the admission in evidence of previous convictions and the methods used by him.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘Judge Brown dealt with the previous . .
Cited – C v Regina CACD 17-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against an order at a preparatory hearing that evidence of his previous convictions and the manner of his actions should be admissible at his trial for two murders. A ruling had been given which the defendant said would . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain, Regina v (No 2) CACD 28-Apr-2016
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551041
