McGrory, R. v

McGrory, R. v

The trial judge was entitled to admit the hearsay evidence of previous strangulation as relevant to propensity under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge properly considered the interests of justice and gave adequate directions to the jury on the use of this evidence and on the defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility. The directions did not misstate the law or improperly import concepts from the abolished law of provocation. The conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

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, Admissibility of Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility Loss of Control Admissibility of Evidence Bad Character Evidence Hearsay +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 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 hearsay evidence of previous strangulation under bad character provisions
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misapplied the law regarding hearsay evidence and interests of justice
  3. 3 Whether the summing-up to the jury was inadequate or misleading regarding loss of control, diminished responsibility, and the interrelationship between defences

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit the hearsay evidence of previous strangulation as relevant to propensity under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge properly considered the interests of justice and gave adequate directions to the jury on the use of this evidence and on the defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility. The directions did not misstate the law or improperly import concepts from the abolished law of provocation. The conviction was safe and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused