Cutts, R v

Cutts, R v

The judge was correct to allow the case to go before the jury at both the close of the Crown's case and at the close of all evidence. The jury was entitled to evaluate the conflicting expert evidence on causation and to prefer the Crown's case. The conviction was not unsafe.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: John Charles Cutts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Causation, Expert Evidence, Unsafe Conviction
Criminal Law Murder Causation Expert Evidence Unsafe Conviction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

John Charles Cutts

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to withdraw the case from the jury at the close of the Crown's case and at the close of all evidence
  2. 2 Whether the expert evidence on causation was sufficient to support a conviction for murder
  3. 3 Whether the conviction was unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to allow the case to go before the jury at both the close of the Crown's case and at the close of all evidence. The jury was entitled to evaluate the conflicting expert evidence on causation and to prefer the Crown's case. The conviction was not unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed