Cole v R

Cole v R

The conviction is not unsafe; the identification evidence, though subject to criticism, was corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and the non-disclosure of M8 did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Appellant: Kevin Samuel Cole; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Following CCRC Reference
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Adverse Inference, Miscarriage of Justice, Murder, Grievous Bodily Harm
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Disclosure Obligations Adverse Inference Miscarriage of Justice Murder Grievous Bodily Harm

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Samuel Cole

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Following CCRC Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of M8 and Kirk's admissions rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Ellis should have been invited to the identification parade
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's directions on identification and adverse inference were flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is not unsafe; the identification evidence, though subject to criticism, was corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and the non-disclosure of M8 did not undermine the fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed