One defendant had been found when searched to have a plastic egg-shaped capsule with crack cocaine inside. He now appealed the direction given to the jury as to the evidence against him given by a co-defendant.
Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the standard Joint Studies Board direction on the evidence of co-accused should not be given where the defendants ran a cut throat defence: ‘Any warning would have had to apply to both defendants, and would have meant directing the jury to treat each defendant’s evidence with caution, just because it inculpated the other. That might have led to a complaint that the jury had not been allowed to approach the case with open minds. It was impossible in this case to give the normal warning.’
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Crim 1113, [2000] Crim LR 48
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.157513