Hampton & Anor v The Crown [2004] EWCA Crim 2139 (30 July 2004)

Hampton & Anor v The Crown [2004] EWCA Crim 2139 (30 July 2004)

The court held that the trial judge's directions regarding identification evidence were sufficient and did not require a special warning. The fresh evidence from Miss Woodcock was not admitted as it would not have affected the safety of the conviction. The judge's handling of jury empanelment and press coverage was proper and removed any risk of prejudice.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Crim 2139
Parties
Appellant: Gary Phillip Hampton; Appellant: Michael Anthony Brown; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Fresh Evidence, Identification Evidence, Jury Directions, Alibi Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Fresh Evidence Identification Evidence Jury Directions Alibi 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Phillip Hampton

Appellant

Michael Anthony Brown

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in not withdrawing Hampton's case from the jury
  2. 2 Whether prejudicial press coverage affected the fairness of the trial
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to give a proper direction regarding identification evidence of the vehicle registration

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the trial judge's directions regarding identification evidence were sufficient and did not require a special warning. The fresh evidence from Miss Woodcock was not admitted as it would not have affected the safety of the conviction. The judge's handling of jury empanelment and press coverage was proper and removed any risk of prejudice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • No fresh evidence admitted