Regina v Shippey and Jedynak: 1988

The defendants were tried for rape. The defence pleaded no case to answer saying that the complainant’s evidence was weak uncorroborated and inconsistent.
Held: The judge should assess the evidence and if the evidence of the witness upon whom the prosecution case depended was self-contradictory and out of reason and all common sense then such evidence was tenuous and suffered from inherent weakness. Turner J gave a direction on the charge of based upon his assessment of crucial parts of the prosecution case as being ‘frankly incredible’ and as having ‘really significant inherent inconsistencies’ and as being ‘strikingly and wholly inconsistent with the allegation of rape’.
The requirement to take the prosecution evidence at its height did not mean ‘picking out all the plums and leaving the duff behind’. It is necessary to look at the evidence as a whole, not merely parts of it, and assess whether a reasonable jury could come to the conclusion on that evidence that the defendant is guilty. In this case the court concluded that ‘a jury properly directed could not properly convict.’ Galbraith did not say that the prosecution need include only those parts of its case which pointed to guilt when resisting such an application.
Turner J
[1988] Crim LR 767
England and Wales
ExplainedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .

Cited by:
CitedGibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
CitedH, Regina v CACD 25-Apr-2006
The defendant youth appealed his conviction and sentence for rape by oral penetration of a six or seven year old boy. He complained that the evidence contained such inconsistences that the case should not have proceeded. Complaint was also made that . .
CitedLoughlin, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the circumstances in which sentences passed on offenders who have given assistance to prosecuting authorities should be referred back to the sentencing court under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.214646