Slade & Ors, R. v [2015] EWCA Crim 71 (10 February 2015)

Slade & Ors, R. v [2015] EWCA Crim 71 (10 February 2015)

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to reject the submission of no case to answer as there was sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. The judge properly exercised discretion in not discharging the jury, as there was no evidence of taint. The alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Crim 71
Parties
Appellant: Dennis Patrick Richard Slade; Appellant: Michael Nicholas Baxter; Appellant: Richard Andrew Pearman; Appellant: James Robert Hudson; Respondent: Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence deferred for further consideration.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Murder, Robbery, Criminal Damage, Handling Stolen Goods, Arson, Serious Crime Prevention Order, Voice Recognition Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Jury Discharge, Non Disclosure, Submission of No Case to Answer
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Murder Robbery Criminal Damage Handling Stolen Goods Arson Serious Crime Prevention Order Voice Recognition Evidence +4 more

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

Parties

Dennis Patrick Richard Slade

Appellant

Michael Nicholas Baxter

Appellant

Richard Andrew Pearman

Appellant

James Robert Hudson

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for conspiracy to murder were safe in light of fresh evidence and trial conduct
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to reject the submission of no case to answer as there was sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. The judge properly exercised discretion in not discharging the jury, as there was no evidence of taint. The alleged non-disclosure was speculative and immaterial. The fresh evidence did not render the convictions unsafe. The appeals against conviction were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence deferred for further consideration.

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction on first indictment dismissed for Slade, Pearman, and Baxter.
  • Appeals against sentence on both indictments deferred pending outcome of conviction appeals.