Wall, R. v

Wall, R. v

The hearsay statements were properly admitted, there was sufficient evidence on causation for the jury to convict, and the judge's summing-up was legally adequate. The grounds of appeal were unarguable and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Christopher Martin Wall; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Hearsay Evidence, Causation, Self Defence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Murder Hearsay Evidence Causation Self Defence Jury Directions

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Christopher Martin Wall

Applicant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay statements made by the deceased after the incident were admissible
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence on causation to justify the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the judge's summing-up on causation was adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The hearsay statements were properly admitted, there was sufficient evidence on causation for the jury to convict, and the judge's summing-up was legally adequate. The grounds of appeal were unarguable and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused