Murphy & Ors, R. v (Rev 1)

Murphy & Ors, R. v (Rev 1)

The trial judge was correct to exclude the proposed expert evidence regarding Heidi Murphy's intellectual capacity as it did not assist the jury on any relevant issue and risked confusion. The judge erred in allowing the prosecution-prepared document to go to the jury in its form, but this did not render the convictions unsafe given the strength of the evidence. Sentences were generally within the proper range, except for Heidi Murphy, whose sentence was reduced to reflect her intellectual limitations and compliant character.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Heidi Murphy; Applicant: Darren Palmer; Applicant: Paul Wilkinson; Applicant: Martin Lee Murphy; Applicant: Amandeep Singh; Applicant: Sheraz Mohammed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; Heidi Murphy's appeal against sentence allowed; all other sentence appeals refused.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Jury Directions, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Jury Directions Sentencing Guidelines

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Heidi Murphy

Appellant

Darren Palmer

Applicant

Paul Wilkinson

Applicant

Martin Lee Murphy

Applicant

Amandeep Singh

Applicant

Sheraz Mohammed

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit expert evidence regarding Heidi Murphy's intellectual capacity
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in allowing a prosecution-prepared document to go to the jury during deliberations
  3. 3 Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or failed to account for mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to exclude the proposed expert evidence regarding Heidi Murphy's intellectual capacity as it did not assist the jury on any relevant issue and risked confusion. The judge erred in allowing the prosecution-prepared document to go to the jury in its form, but this did not render the convictions unsafe given the strength of the evidence. Sentences were generally within the proper range, except for Heidi Murphy, whose sentence was reduced to reflect her intellectual limitations and compliant character.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; Heidi Murphy's appeal against sentence allowed; all other sentence appeals refused.

Orders

  • Heidi Murphy's concurrent sentences of 12 years' imprisonment quashed and substituted with concurrent sentences of 10 years' imprisonment.
  • All other applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused.