Loader & Anor, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 410 (24 March 2023)

Loader & Anor, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 410 (24 March 2023)

The convictions were safe because the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the attack, possession of weapons, and behaviour of the appellants, provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find both identification and intent to kill. The trial judge's rulings on admissibility and directions to the jury adequately addressed any potential prejudice.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 410
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; First Appellant: Remi Loader; Second Appellant: Jacob Montique
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
applications for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Wounding With Intent, Possession of Offensive Weapon, Admissibility of Evidence, Identification, Intent to Kill, Appeals
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Wounding With Intent Possession of Offensive Weapon Admissibility of Evidence Identification Intent to Kill Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Remi Loader

First Appellant

Jacob Montique

Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for attempted murder and wounding with intent were unsafe due to evidential and procedural errors
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting motive evidence, evidence of possession of weapons, and certain identification evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to kill to leave the case to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were safe because the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the attack, possession of weapons, and behaviour of the appellants, provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find both identification and intent to kill. The trial judge's rulings on admissibility and directions to the jury adequately addressed any potential prejudice.

Court Disposition

applications for leave to appeal refused