Regina v Jones; Regina v Jenkins: CACD 5 Jun 2003

Where each of more than one defendants asserted that he was not responsible for the crime, the jury should be directed (in addition) that they should consider the case of each defendant separately, the case should be considered as a whole, including looking at he evidence of co-accused, and when considering the evidence of a co-defendant they should allow for any self-serving element, and evidence of co-accused should be considered as for anyone else. The direction was defective, the appeals were allowed, and a retrial ordered.


Auld LJ, Silber, Owen JJ


Times 19-Jun-2003


England and Wales


CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Evidence

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.183673