Mula, R. v

Mula, R. v

There was prima facie evidence from which the jury could have inferred self-defence, and the trial judge erred in not leaving that issue to the jury. The failure to do so rendered the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Altin Mula
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; no retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Jury Directions, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Self Defence Jury Directions Appeal Against 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Altin Mula

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to leave the issue of self-defence to the jury despite the appellant's alibi defence

Ratio Decidendi

There was prima facie evidence from which the jury could have inferred self-defence, and the trial judge erred in not leaving that issue to the jury. The failure to do so rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; no retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No order for retrial