Jisl, R. v [2004] EWCA Crim 696 (01 April 2004)

Jisl, R. v [2004] EWCA Crim 696 (01 April 2004)

The cross-examination of Tekin, while lengthy and at times robust, was not oppressive or unfair so as to render the conviction unsafe; the judge's refusal to admit the Aktolun statement was a proper exercise of discretion; the summing up, though long, was fair and adequately presented the defence; there was no prejudicial non-disclosure or error in refusing to recall the witness; the convictions are safe.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Crim 696
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: Gungor Tekin; Appellant/defendant: Jan Jisl; Appellant/defendant: Yucel Konakli
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Legal Topics
Drug Importation, Evidentiary Fairness, Cross Examination, Admissibility of Evidence, Summing Up, Public Interest Immunity
Criminal Law Drug Importation Evidentiary Fairness Cross Examination Admissibility of Evidence Summing Up Public Interest Immunity

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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Gungor Tekin

Appellant/defendant

Jan Jisl

Appellant/defendant

Yucel Konakli

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cross-examination of Tekin was unfair or oppressive and rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit a statement under ss 23 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the summing up was too long or unfairly structured

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-examination of Tekin, while lengthy and at times robust, was not oppressive or unfair so as to render the conviction unsafe; the judge's refusal to admit the Aktolun statement was a proper exercise of discretion; the summing up, though long, was fair and adequately presented the defence; there was no prejudicial non-disclosure or error in refusing to recall the witness; the convictions are safe.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.