McGrory, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 2336 (07 November 2013)

McGrory, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 2336 (07 November 2013)

The trial judge was entitled to admit the hearsay evidence of prior strangulation under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as relevant to propensity, properly considered statutory factors for hearsay admissibility, and gave fair and accurate jury directions. Mental health evidence was correctly excluded from loss of control defence. No misdirection or unsafe conviction occurred.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 2336
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: John Fairweather McGrory
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Diminished Responsibility, Loss of Control, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility Loss of Control Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Evidence Jury Directions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

John Fairweather McGrory

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of bad character based on hearsay statements
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge properly applied the statutory tests for admissibility of hearsay evidence
  3. 3 Whether the jury was adequately directed on the relevance of prior strangulation evidence to loss of control and diminished responsibility

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit the hearsay evidence of prior strangulation under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as relevant to propensity, properly considered statutory factors for hearsay admissibility, and gave fair and accurate jury directions. Mental health evidence was correctly excluded from loss of control defence. No misdirection or unsafe conviction occurred.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused