Synnott & Ors, R v

Synnott & Ors, R v

The fresh evidence of KE, when considered alongside the evidence of GF and other supporting evidence, does not undermine but rather strengthens the case against the appellants. The inconsistencies do not render the convictions unsafe. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Andrew Synnott; Appellant: Paul Arden; Appellant: Michael John Synnott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Murder, Fresh Evidence, Appeal Against Conviction, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Murder Fresh Evidence Appeal Against Conviction Safety of 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Andrew Synnott

Appellant

Paul Arden

Appellant

Michael John Synnott

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the appellants for conspiracy to murder are unsafe in light of fresh evidence from a co-conspirator (KE) given in subsequent trials.
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies between the evidence of Graham Fullerty (GF) and Kassam Essa (KE) undermine the credibility of the prosecution case at the first trial.
  3. 3 Whether the court should receive and consider the fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence of KE, when considered alongside the evidence of GF and other supporting evidence, does not undermine but rather strengthens the case against the appellants. The inconsistencies do not render the convictions unsafe. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed