Kempster, R v

Kempster, R v

The conviction on count 1 was unsafe due to insufficiently reliable ear-print evidence; the jury's verdict could not be justified solely on the basis of the expert comparison. However, the convictions on counts 2, 3, and 4 were not affected by the quashing of count 1, as the judge's directions ensured separate consideration. The sentence imposed was justified by the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Mark Kempster
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
conviction on count 1 quashed; convictions and sentence on counts 2, 3, and 4 upheld
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Ear Print Identification, Unsafe Conviction, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Ear Print Identification Unsafe Conviction Appeal Procedure Sentencing

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

Mark Kempster

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ear-print evidence was sufficiently reliable to justify conviction on count 1
  2. 2 Whether fresh expert evidence undermined the prosecution's case
  3. 3 Whether the jury's verdict on count 1 affected the safety of convictions on counts 2, 3, and 4

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on count 1 was unsafe due to insufficiently reliable ear-print evidence; the jury's verdict could not be justified solely on the basis of the expert comparison. However, the convictions on counts 2, 3, and 4 were not affected by the quashing of count 1, as the judge's directions ensured separate consideration. The sentence imposed was justified by the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

Court Disposition

conviction on count 1 quashed; convictions and sentence on counts 2, 3, and 4 upheld

Orders

  • conviction on count 1 quashed
  • leave to appeal on counts 2, 3, and 4 refused