R v Andre Mathurin

R v Andre Mathurin

The conviction was rendered unsafe because the judge's interventions during cross-examination amounted to impermissible testing of the appellant's account, undermining the defence and giving the appearance of partiality to the jury.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Andre Mathurin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Judicial Intervention, Unsafe Conviction, Drug Offences, Fair Trial, Judge's Role in Cross Examination
Criminal Law Judicial Intervention Unsafe Conviction Drug Offences Fair Trial Judge's Role in Cross Examination

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Andre Mathurin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to the judge's interventions during cross-examination
  2. 2 Whether the judge's questions amounted to impermissible testing of the appellant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was rendered unsafe because the judge's interventions during cross-examination amounted to impermissible testing of the appellant's account, undermining the defence and giving the appearance of partiality to the jury.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Retrial ordered on count 1 (supplying a controlled drug of Class A)