Gabbana, Regina v: CACD 9 Nov 2020

Minor Error in Juror Directions – Conviction safe
The defendant appealed his conviction of murder. He was said to have instructed two others to carry it out. He now said that evidence had wrongly been admitted of bad character.
Held: It would have been better to direct the jury as to applying the ‘so you are sure’ to the questioned evidence but overall the direction corrected that omission and the error was insufficient to vitiate the conviction.
References: [2020] EWCA Crim 1473, [2020] WLR(D) 608
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: Davis LJ, Jeremy Baker, Holgate JJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 2003 101
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.655681

Adams, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Nov 2009

The claimant sought compensation for his imprisonment after the overturning of his conviction, on the basis that evidence had emerged which undermined the conviction.
Held: Such a claim could not succeed where the reason for the non-use of the evidence was the incompetence or otherwise of the defence lawyers. Existing law had not decided just what constituted new evidence as regards who any evidence was unknown to. A failure by a defence team to recognise the significance of a particular item of evidence was not an example to fall with Lord Bingham’s categories in Mullen of something going seriously wrong, unless that failure was so bad as to be egregious.
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1291, Times 07-Dec-2009, [2010] QB 460, [2010] 3 WLR 63, [2010] 1 Cr App R 25
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Lloyd
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.381578

Regina v H: 2005

References: [2005] 1 WLR 2005
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Grout CACD (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Crim 299)
    The defendant appealed against conviction of intentionally causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.
    Held: The conviction was quashed. The evidence did not establish one of the essential elements for a conviction. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.430356

McAuliffe v The Queen: 28 Jun 1995

References: (1995) 69 ALJR 621, [1995] HCA 37, (1995) 130 ALR 26, (1995) 183 CLR 108
Links: Austlii
Ratio: Austlii (High Court of Australia) Criminal Law – Murder – Complicity – Common purpose to assault victim – Death – Direction that jury might convict if satisfied accused contemplated that intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm possible incident of joint enterprise.
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rahman and Others, Regina v HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 45, [2008] 3 WLR 264, Times 07-Jul-08, HL, [2009] 1 Cr App Rep 1, [2008] Crim LR 979, [2009] AC 129, [2008] 4 All ER 351)
    The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. None had themselves inflicted any violence, but were convicted as part of a joint enterprise. They said they had not known that the principal carried a knife. They said that the evidence . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 15 June 2020
Ref: 270891