Arnold, R. v

Arnold, R. v

The trial judge did not err in refusing to sever the indictment as the jury could properly be directed to consider each count separately, and the evidence met the threshold for similar fact due to the combination of features and proximity in time and place. The admission of Mr Stevens' statement under section 23 was justified as he was absent through fear, and the defence had sufficient opportunity to controvert the statement. The evidence was not solely or decisively based on the absent witness's statement, and the proceedings as a whole were fair, thus there was no infringement of Article 6 ECHR. The convictions are safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Kenneth Arnold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Similar Fact Evidence, Admissibility of Hearsay, Witness Intimidation, Article 6 ECHR, Joinder and Severance
Criminal Law Evidence Similar Fact Evidence Admissibility of Hearsay Witness Intimidation Article 6 ECHR Joinder and Severance

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Kenneth Arnold

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to sever the indictment for two counts of wounding with intent
  2. 2 Whether similar fact evidence was properly admitted
  3. 3 Whether the admission of a witness statement under section 23 Criminal Justice Act 1988 was proper where the witness was absent through fear

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to sever the indictment as the jury could properly be directed to consider each count separately, and the evidence met the threshold for similar fact due to the combination of features and proximity in time and place. The admission of Mr Stevens' statement under section 23 was justified as he was absent through fear, and the defence had sufficient opportunity to controvert the statement. The evidence was not solely or decisively based on the absent witness's statement, and the proceedings as a whole were fair, thus there was no infringement of Article 6 ECHR. The convictions are safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed