R v Jordan Foote & Ors

R v Jordan Foote & Ors

The use of a magnifying glass by the jury did not constitute jury irregularity or improper investigation, as it was used to examine evidence already properly adduced; there was no error in the trial judge's refusal of the submission of no case to answer; the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and all relevant mitigating factors were considered.

Parties
Applicant: Jordan Foote; Applicant: Jabari Fanty; Applicant: Ricardo Meluleki Nkanyezi; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence refused
Legal Topics
Jury Irregularity, Use of Magnifying Glass, No Case to Answer, Sentencing, Firearms Offences, Murder, Attempted Murder, Conspiracy, Possession of Bladed Article
Criminal Law Jury Irregularity Use of Magnifying Glass No Case to Answer Sentencing Firearms Offences Murder Attempted Murder +2 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordan Foote

Applicant

Jabari Fanty

Applicant

Ricardo Meluleki Nkanyezi

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether jury irregularity occurred due to use of a magnifying glass
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing a submission of no case to answer
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on Jordan Foote was manifestly excessive or failed to account for mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The use of a magnifying glass by the jury did not constitute jury irregularity or improper investigation, as it was used to examine evidence already properly adduced; there was no error in the trial judge's refusal of the submission of no case to answer; the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and all relevant mitigating factors were considered.

Court Disposition

renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence refused