Grant, R v

Grant, R v

The trial judge was justified in refusing to sever the appellant's trial from that of his co-accused because the Indian restaurant evidence was admissible and relevant, the jury was properly directed to disregard it in the appellant's case, and there was no irremediable prejudice or unfairness; the Watson direction as given did not render the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Jason Grant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Severance of Trials, Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence, Cross Examination by Co Accused, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Jury Directions, Watson Direction, Right to Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Severance of Trials Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence Cross Examination by Co Accused Privilege Against Self Incrimination Jury Directions Watson Direction Right to Fair Trial Under Article 6 ECHR

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Jason Grant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the appellant's trial from that of his co-accused after admission of prejudicial similar fact evidence by a co-accused.
  2. 2 Whether the judge's jury directions, particularly regarding the Indian restaurant incident and the Watson direction, were adequate and fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was justified in refusing to sever the appellant's trial from that of his co-accused because the Indian restaurant evidence was admissible and relevant, the jury was properly directed to disregard it in the appellant's case, and there was no irremediable prejudice or unfairness; the Watson direction as given did not render the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed