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 would be anomalous for the court to say that the evidence raised no doubt whatever in their minds but might have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Lord Kilbrandon said that the test to be applied by each member of the appellate court is: ‘Have I a reasonable doubt, or perhaps even a lurking doubt, that this conviction may be unsafe or unsatisfactory?’ Viscount Dilhorne: ‘While . . the Court of Appeal and this House may find it a convenient approach to consider what a jury might have done if they had heard the fresh evidence, the ultimate responsibility rests with them and them alone for deciding the question [whether or not the verdict is unsafe].’
Judges:
Lord Kilbrandon, Viscount Dilhorne
Citations:
[1974] AC 878, [1973] 3 All ER 762, [1973] 3 WLR 719, (1974) 58 Cr App R 256
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
Cited – Regina v Cooper (Sean) CACD 1969
The court considered its power to interfere with a jury’s verdict where a trial had been properly conducted: ‘every issue was before the jury and in which the jury was properly instructed, and, accordingly, a case in which this court will be very . .
Cited by:
Approved – Regina 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: . .
Appealed to – Regina v Stafford CACD 1968
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would . .
Cited – Pinfold, Mackenney v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2003
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant . .
Cited – Kin-Hung v The Queen PC 11-Nov-1996
(Hong Kong) Despite the judge’s sympathetic directions as to the inadeqacy of the prosecution case, the defendant was convicted of two rapes.
Held: The test whether each member of an appellate court considers the verdicts ‘unsafe or . .
Cited – Kelvin 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Dizaei v Regina CACD 16-May-2011
The defendant had been convicted of misconduct in a public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He now appealed saying that he could demonstrate that the principal witness was dishonest. The prosecution replied that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.182511