McNamee, R v [1998] EWCA Crim 3524 (17 December 1998)

McNamee, R v [1998] EWCA Crim 3524 (17 December 1998)

The conviction was found to be unsafe because the non-disclosure of significant forensic and police evidence, combined with fresh expert evidence undermining the reliability of the fingerprint identification and the scientific linkage to the Hyde Park bombing, meant the jury might not have reached the same verdict if fully informed. The court could not be sure the jury would have been satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of the new material.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Crim 3524
Parties
Appellant: Gilbert Thomas Patrick McNamee (aka Danny McNamee); Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal After Referral by Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Cause Explosions, Disclosure of Evidence, Fresh Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Fingerprint Evidence, Forensic Science, Criminal Appeal Act 1995
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Cause Explosions Disclosure of Evidence Fresh Evidence Unsafe Conviction Fingerprint Evidence Forensic Science Criminal Appeal Act 1995

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

Parties

Gilbert Thomas Patrick McNamee (aka Danny McNamee)

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal After Referral by Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe in light of fresh evidence and non-disclosure by the Crown
  2. 2 Whether the fingerprint evidence linking the appellant to the crime is reliable
  3. 3 Whether the non-disclosure of forensic and police reports constituted a material irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was found to be unsafe because the non-disclosure of significant forensic and police evidence, combined with fresh expert evidence undermining the reliability of the fingerprint identification and the scientific linkage to the Hyde Park bombing, meant the jury might not have reached the same verdict if fully informed. The court could not be sure the jury would have been satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of the new material.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed on grounds of being unsafe due to non-disclosure and fresh evidence.