Brown & Ors, R. v

Brown & Ors, R. v

The cumulative deficiencies in the trial judge's legal directions on robbery and joint enterprise, the lack of a structured summing-up, and the absence of a written route to verdict rendered the robbery convictions unsafe; accordingly, the appeals against conviction for robbery were allowed and those convictions set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Ashley Samuel Brown; Appellant: Shane McEniry; Appellant: Rio Samuda; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeals allowed in part; robbery convictions quashed; no retrial or sentence adjustment ordered; other convictions stand
Legal Topics
Robbery, Joint Enterprise, False Imprisonment, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Summing Up, Jury Directions, Alibi, Adverse Inference, Unsafe Conviction, Retrial, Sentence Adjustment
Criminal Law Robbery Joint Enterprise False Imprisonment Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Summing Up Jury Directions Alibi +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashley Samuel Brown

Appellant

Shane McEniry

Appellant

Rio Samuda

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer on the robbery count
  2. 2 Whether the judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury on the legal definition of robbery and joint enterprise
  3. 3 Whether the summing-up was incoherent and unfair in the absence of a written route to verdict

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative deficiencies in the trial judge's legal directions on robbery and joint enterprise, the lack of a structured summing-up, and the absence of a written route to verdict rendered the robbery convictions unsafe; accordingly, the appeals against conviction for robbery were allowed and those convictions set aside.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed in part; robbery convictions quashed; no retrial or sentence adjustment ordered; other convictions stand

Orders

  • Robbery convictions (count 1) for all appellants set aside
  • Applications for retrial and sentence adjustment refused