Workman v R.

Workman v R.

The conviction is safe. The fresh evidence, whether admitted or not, does not undermine the safety of the conviction. The tactical decisions of the defence at trial were reasonable. The judge was correct not to leave loss of control to the jury as there was insufficient evidence to raise the issue. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Parties
Appellant: Ian Garth Workman; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Fresh Evidence, Expert Evidence, Loss of Control, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Fresh Evidence Expert Evidence Loss of Control Appeal Procedure Sentencing

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Garth Workman

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for murder is unsafe in light of fresh expert evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the defence of loss of control to the jury
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is safe. The fresh evidence, whether admitted or not, does not undermine the safety of the conviction. The tactical decisions of the defence at trial were reasonable. The judge was correct not to leave loss of control to the jury as there was insufficient evidence to raise the issue. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused