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 issues in the trial, and the diminution in his standing as an expert witness did not undermine the safety of this conviction. The defendant had used deliberate serious force, attacking the victim with a knife. There had been disputes between the forensic experts, and difficulties also with the defence expert evidence. Difficulties dealt with on the first appeal were not cumulative with these.

Judge LCJ, Henriques J, Davis J
(2011) 119 BMLR 151, [2011] EWCA Crim 650
England and Wales
CitedRegina v O’ Leary CACD 29-Nov-2006
The fact that the reputation of a forensic expert on whose evidence a conviction was based had been undermined would not always mean that the conviction would be overturned. Though the Crown conceded in this case that the conviction was now unsafe, . .
CitedBoreman and Others, Regina v CACD 19-Jun-2006
Appeals were allowed where the reputation of the forensic expert upon whose evidence the convictions were based had been seriously damaged. . .
CitedAhmed v Regina CACD 14-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the reputation of the forensic expert on whose evidence it had been based had been severely damaged.
Held: Although the information relating to Dr Heath was ‘deeply concerning . . to . .
CitedStafford 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 . .
CitedBurridge v Regina CACD 2-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his infant son. There had been considerable expert medical evidence called, but only by the prosecution.
Held: The court considered the basis upon which new evidence could be . .
CitedDunn and Others, Regina v CACD 23-Jun-2009
Appeals from conviction of murder: ‘on the basis that [the evidence of one witness] may be different in material respects from what was said subsequently at the trial of Conrad Jones’. . .
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedRegina v Harris, Rockalan, Cherry, Faulder CACD 21-Jul-2005
The court gave guidance in respect of expert evidence given in criminal trials. The court made the following two points with regard to evidence of a subdural hematoma caused non-accidentally. First, a clinically observed coincidence of SDH, retinal . .
CitedKelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(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 . .
CitedHakala, Regina v CACD 19-Mar-2002
. .
CitedRegina v Ishtiaq Ahmed CACD 6-Dec-2002
Approach to fresh evidence produced on appeal. . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
First AppealNoye, Regina v CACD 10-Oct-2001
. .
CitedWeiss v Regina 15-Dec-2005
(High Court of Australia) The High Court may dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred. What is involved in assessing that question in the context of a trial by jury. . .
TariffNoye, Regina v QBD 25-Jun-2010
Review of minimum term after conviction for murder. . .
CitedShane Huia Matenga v The Queen 13-Mar-2009
(Supreme Court of New Zealand) Whether to set aside jury’s verdict – miscarriage of justice . .

Cited by:
CitedS 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: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.430741