The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction.
Held: The appeal failed. The direction as to the no comment interview had allowed for complications with co-defendants and had caused no injustice.
The warning as to the evidence of the co-accused was open to criticism, but: ‘this omission will have had no impact upon the safety of the verdict in the present case. It was perfectly obvious to the jury that each man had a motive to serve by blaming the other. The judge explained the respective cases for the defendants separately . . and the jury could not have missed the impact on each case of a finding that one rather than the other defendant had lit the fire. As to the lighting of the fire, one of them was lying. The jury had ample other evidence against which to test the reliability of each account. The issue of more difficulty for the jury was whether the defendants who had not lit the fire were guilty as secondary parties.’
The absence of directions upon the propensity aspect of the evidence was capable of significance to the jury’s consideration of the case against the appellant, but the judge did direct the jury that they should give separate consideration to and resolve the ‘background’ issues between the defendants. It was sufficient for the judge to tailor her directions to the evidence the jury had heard and to the issue of credibility of the defence cases respectively.
Judges:
Pitchford LJ, Cranston, Haddon-Cave JJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Crim 86
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(e), Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v McGarry CACD 16-Jul-1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the . .
Cited – Regina v Jones and Jenkins CACD 6-Jun-2003
The two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. On the prosecution case it was joint enterprise; Jones’ case was that both had indeed attacked the victim, but had caused him only minor injuries and that the fatal injuries had been . .
Cited – Petkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
Cited – Regina v Hanson; Regina v Gilmore; Regina v Pickstone CACD 22-Mar-2005
In each case complaint was made about the way in which the judge had dealt with applications by the Crown to bring in the defendant’s bad character as evidence of his propensity to commit the crime.
Held: The court set out the applicable . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina v CACD 21-Dec-2005
Each defendant challenged the use of bad character evidence against them under the 2003 Act.
Held: There is no blueprint for bad character directions. The requirements for a fair trial will depend upon the evidence and the issues which arise . .
Cited – Lafayette, Regina v CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He had claimed self defence. A main issues for the jury was who had produced the knife which caused the fatal injuries. The appellant had previous convictions for, other offences of violence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.470902