Hay, R. v

Hay, R. v

The evidence of the appellant's previous conviction was properly admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as relevant to rebut the explanation of innocent association and coincidence. The directions to the jury, though not perfect, were sufficient and did not amount to a material misdirection. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Daniel Glen Hay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Robbery, Bad Character Evidence, Propensity, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Robbery Bad Character Evidence Propensity Admissibility of Evidence 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Daniel Glen Hay

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's previous conviction for robbery under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the bad character evidence were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the appellant's previous conviction was properly admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as relevant to rebut the explanation of innocent association and coincidence. The directions to the jury, though not perfect, were sufficient and did not amount to a material misdirection. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No material misdirection found