Hampton & Anor v The Crown

Hampton & Anor v The Crown

The court held that the decision not to call Miss Woodcock as an alibi witness was a deliberate and informed tactical choice, not a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence at trial, and thus fresh evidence should not be admitted. The judge's directions on identification evidence were adequate and did not require a Turnbull-type warning. Non-disclosure of cell-site evidence was unfortunate but did not render the convictions unsafe, as it would not have affected the outcome.

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
appeals dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Fresh Evidence, Alibi, Non Disclosure, Cell Site Evidence, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Murder Fresh Evidence Alibi Non Disclosure Cell Site Evidence Identification 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 6 Authorities cited 23 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 publication warranted delay or discharge of the second jury
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to give proper direction on identification evidence (registration number)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the decision not to call Miss Woodcock as an alibi witness was a deliberate and informed tactical choice, not a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence at trial, and thus fresh evidence should not be admitted. The judge's directions on identification evidence were adequate and did not require a Turnbull-type warning. Non-disclosure of cell-site evidence was unfortunate but did not render the convictions unsafe, as it would not have affected the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed; convictions upheld