Hindle, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1367 (07 September 2021)

Hindle, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1367 (07 September 2021)

The trial judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find intent for murder; the refusal to recall the witness was a proper exercise of discretion as the additional evidence was immaterial; and the decision not to give a reliability warning was justified as the witness's evidence was consistent on key points and her credibility was for the jury.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1367
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Joseph Hindle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Murder Robbery Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Credibility of Witnesses Appeal Against 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Joseph Hindle

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer for murder
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to recall a key witness (Natalie Long) rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have given a warning to the jury regarding the reliability of the key witness

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find intent for murder; the refusal to recall the witness was a proper exercise of discretion as the additional evidence was immaterial; and the decision not to give a reliability warning was justified as the witness's evidence was consistent on key points and her credibility was for the jury.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused