Waters v R

Waters v R

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's summing-up, while not perfect, did not amount to a material misdirection, and the fresh evidence sought to be introduced was either consistent with or did not undermine the prosecution case. The conviction is not unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: Colin John Waters; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction on Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Misdirection, Fresh Evidence, Timing of Injuries, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Murder Misdirection Fresh Evidence Timing of Injuries Jury Directions

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin John Waters

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction on Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the timing of the fatal injuries and the so-called '6.30 feed'.
  2. 2 Whether fresh expert evidence on gastric emptying and timing of injuries should be admitted on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to the summing-up and handling of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's summing-up, while not perfect, did not amount to a material misdirection, and the fresh evidence sought to be introduced was either consistent with or did not undermine the prosecution case. The conviction is not unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed