Ray, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 84 (23rd January, 2002)

Ray, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 84 (23rd January, 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing severance and not discharging the jury after the co-defendant's acquittal, gave clear and sufficient directions to the jury to avoid prejudice, and that the fresh evidence regarding the state of daylight did not undermine the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 84
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Alan Ray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial by Jury
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, Joint Trials, Severance, Admissibility of Evidence, Alibi, Fresh Evidence, Judicial Discretion, Summing Up, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Murder Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice Joint Trials Severance Admissibility of Evidence Alibi Fresh Evidence +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Alan Ray

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial by Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for murder and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing severance and not discharging the jury after co-defendant's acquittal
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence (Dr Borer’s video) undermines the safety of the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing severance and not discharging the jury after the co-defendant's acquittal, gave clear and sufficient directions to the jury to avoid prejudice, and that the fresh evidence regarding the state of daylight did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's lies, admissions, and the timeline, provided a sufficient basis for the jury's verdict. The conviction was not unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld