BKY & Ors v R

BKY & Ors v R

The Court found that the trial judge's summing up was fair, comprehensive, and did not cause unfair prejudice to any appellant. The judge's interventions and comments were appropriate and did not undermine the defence. The refusal to admit bad character evidence was correct. The sentences imposed, including the minimum term for Mayo, were within the proper range. All convictions were safe and no grounds for appeal were made out.

Parties
Appellant: BKY; Appellant: Clayton Owen; Appellant: Sonny Smith; Appellant: Joe Lathan; Appellant: Leighton Mayo; Appellant: Blaine Sewell; Appellant: AGN; Appellant: BGS; Appellant: Grant Wheatley; Appellant: Calum Maddison; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
all appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Summing Up, Judicial Impartiality, Bad Character Evidence, Youth Justice, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Summing Up Judicial Impartiality Bad Character Evidence Youth Justice Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BKY

Appellant

Clayton Owen

Appellant

Sonny Smith

Appellant

Joe Lathan

Appellant

Leighton Mayo

Appellant

Blaine Sewell

Appellant

AGN

Appellant

BGS

Appellant

Grant Wheatley

Appellant

Calum Maddison

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's summing up was fair and balanced
  2. 2 Whether judicial interventions or comments caused unfair prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the break in proceedings rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the trial judge's summing up was fair, comprehensive, and did not cause unfair prejudice to any appellant. The judge's interventions and comments were appropriate and did not undermine the defence. The refusal to admit bad character evidence was correct. The sentences imposed, including the minimum term for Mayo, were within the proper range. All convictions were safe and no grounds for appeal were made out.

Court Disposition

all appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Applications by Maddison for extension of time and for leave to appeal refused
  • All appeals against conviction dismissed