Labastide & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 2564 (19 November 2008)

Labastide & Anor, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 2564 (19 November 2008)

The judge was correct to exclude the evidence of Taylor's head injury and blood-stained jeans as it was speculative and not probative of the issues in Labastide's case. The identification evidence against Carty, though open to criticism, was sufficient for the jury's consideration, and the judge's directions regarding mutual support of identification evidence were appropriate. There was no misdirection or error of law that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Crim 2564
Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Labastide; Appellant: Carty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Identification Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Identification Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Labastide

Appellant

Carty

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence of a co-accused's head injury and blood-stained jeans in support of Labastide's defence
  2. 2 Whether the identification evidence against Carty was so poor or contradictory that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury
  3. 3 Whether the judge misdirected the jury by suggesting that the identification evidence of two witnesses could be mutually supportive

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was correct to exclude the evidence of Taylor's head injury and blood-stained jeans as it was speculative and not probative of the issues in Labastide's case. The identification evidence against Carty, though open to criticism, was sufficient for the jury's consideration, and the judge's directions regarding mutual support of identification evidence were appropriate. There was no misdirection or error of law that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed