R v Justin Plummer
The conviction was unsafe because prosecution experts gave fatally flawed evidence outside their expertise, and fresh evidence undermined the reliability of the footwear mark analysis. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed. A retrial is ordered due to the seriousness of the offence and credible remaining evidence.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Justin Plummer
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 July 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Retrial Order
- Outcome
- appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence, Retrial, Unsafe Conviction, Forensic Footwear Analysis
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Justin Plummer
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Retrial Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for murder was unsafe due to flawed expert evidence on footwear marks
- 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted
- 3 Whether a retrial is in the interests of justice
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was unsafe because prosecution experts gave fatally flawed evidence outside their expertise, and fresh evidence undermined the reliability of the footwear mark analysis. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed. A retrial is ordered due to the seriousness of the offence and credible remaining evidence.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Orders
- Appellant to be arraigned on murder and two common assault counts from Indictment 1 within two months
- Fresh indictment to be served within 28 days
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment