Hurley, R v

Hurley, R v

The court found the applicant's account incredible, inconsistent, and contradicted by objective evidence. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not giving evidence at trial, and the fresh evidence from himself and other witnesses was unreliable. The hearsay evidence of McGhee's alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Hurley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Fresh Evidence, Extension of Time, Murder, Joint Enterprise, Hearsay Evidence, Safety of Conviction
Criminal Law Fresh Evidence Extension of Time Murder Joint Enterprise Hearsay Evidence Safety of Conviction

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Hurley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce evidence at trial
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for murder is unsafe in light of new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicant's account incredible, inconsistent, and contradicted by objective evidence. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not giving evidence at trial, and the fresh evidence from himself and other witnesses was unreliable. The hearsay evidence of McGhee's alleged confessions was insufficient to undermine the safety of the conviction. The jury was properly directed, and there was a proper basis for the verdict. The applications to adduce fresh evidence, extend time, and appeal were refused.

Court Disposition

Applications refused