Clarke, R v

Clarke, R v

The Court found that Danny Clarke's legal advisers gave clear and competent advice, and the chosen defence strategy was based on his informed instructions. There was no incompetence or failure that rendered the conviction unsafe. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced by Lee Clarke was not material or new, and did not undermine the safety of the convictions. Accordingly, both applications for leave to appeal were refused.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant/defendant: Danny Clarke; Appellant/defendant: Lee Clarke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction (murder), Renewed Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, Fresh Evidence, Conduct of Defence, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Diminished Responsibility Provocation Fresh Evidence Conduct of Defence Unsafe Conviction

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

Parties

R

Prosecution

Danny Clarke

Appellant/defendant

Lee Clarke

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction (murder), Renewed Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for murder were unsafe due to the conduct and preparation of Danny Clarke's defence at trial
  2. 2 Whether diminished responsibility or provocation should have been advanced as defences for Danny Clarke
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on behalf of Lee Clarke under s 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Danny Clarke's legal advisers gave clear and competent advice, and the chosen defence strategy was based on his informed instructions. There was no incompetence or failure that rendered the conviction unsafe. The fresh evidence sought to be adduced by Lee Clarke was not material or new, and did not undermine the safety of the convictions. Accordingly, both applications for leave to appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused