Eisa, R v

Eisa, R v

The convictions are unsafe because the Recorder's directions as to law were insufficient, his summing-up of the facts was diffuse and unstructured, and the jury was not properly reminded of key evidence, particularly the expert handwriting evidence. The jury could not be expected to have derived proper assistance from the summing-up, and important aspects of the necessary directions were omitted.

Parties
Appellant: Fahad Eisa; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Convictions quashed; appeal allowed; no retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Theft, Fraud, Jury Directions, Summing Up, Appeal Against Conviction, Expert Evidence
Criminal Law Theft Fraud Jury Directions Summing Up Appeal Against Conviction Expert Evidence

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fahad Eisa

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder's directions to the jury were sufficient in law and fact to ensure a safe conviction
  2. 2 Whether the summing-up properly summarised the evidence and issues for the jury
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on drawing inferences from silence

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are unsafe because the Recorder's directions as to law were insufficient, his summing-up of the facts was diffuse and unstructured, and the jury was not properly reminded of key evidence, particularly the expert handwriting evidence. The jury could not be expected to have derived proper assistance from the summing-up, and important aspects of the necessary directions were omitted.

Court Disposition

Convictions quashed; appeal allowed; no retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
  • Appeal allowed.