Owens & Anor, R. v

Owens & Anor, R. v

The late-served evidence was properly admitted as real evidence and not hearsay, with no unfairness or prejudice to the appellants. The judge's directions cured any risk from adverse publicity or counsel's conduct. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury for both conspiracies. The fuel sampling analysis in Mark Owens' car was wrongly admitted without statutory notice, but this did not render the conviction unsafe given other evidence. Sentences imposed were within tariff and not disparate compared to co-accused.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; 1st Appellant Defendant: Mark James Owens; 2nd Appellant Defendant: Patrick Gary Owens
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Money Laundering, Excise Duty Evasion, Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial, Sentencing, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Conspiracy Money Laundering Excise Duty Evasion Admissibility of Evidence Fair Trial Sentencing Abuse of Process

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Mark James Owens

1st Appellant Defendant

Patrick Gary Owens

2nd Appellant Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late-served evidence (16th Notice of Additional Evidence) should have been admitted
  2. 2 Whether documents recovered from co-conspirators were admissible as real evidence or hearsay
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury due to adverse publicity

Ratio Decidendi

The late-served evidence was properly admitted as real evidence and not hearsay, with no unfairness or prejudice to the appellants. The judge's directions cured any risk from adverse publicity or counsel's conduct. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury for both conspiracies. The fuel sampling analysis in Mark Owens' car was wrongly admitted without statutory notice, but this did not render the conviction unsafe given other evidence. Sentences imposed were within tariff and not disparate compared to co-accused.

Court Disposition

appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed