Broadhead, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1705 (23 June 2006)

Broadhead, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1705 (23 June 2006)

There was so little evidence implicating the appellant in the attack that no reasonable jury could properly have convicted on the evidence at the end of the Crown's case; the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1705
Parties
Appellant: David Broadhead; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Murder, No Case to Answer Submission, Circumstantial Evidence, Adverse Inference From Silence, Joint Enterprise
Criminal Law Murder No Case to Answer Submission Circumstantial Evidence Adverse Inference From Silence Joint Enterprise

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Broadhead

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution's case
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to go to the jury
  3. 3 Whether adverse inferences could be drawn from the appellant's silence in interview

Ratio Decidendi

There was so little evidence implicating the appellant in the attack that no reasonable jury could properly have convicted on the evidence at the end of the Crown's case; the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The conviction for murder is quashed.