Billingham, R. v

Billingham, R. v

The judge's directions, though not perfect, were sufficiently close to the standard JSB direction and adequately informed the jury of their ability to consider previous inconsistent statements as evidence. The summing up, taken as a whole, was adequate and the convictions are safe.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Mark Phillip Billingham; Appellant: Justin Billingham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Murder, Evidentiary Law, Previous Inconsistent Statements, Section 119 Criminal Justice Act 2003, Jury Directions, Summing Up, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Evidentiary Law Previous Inconsistent Statements Section 119 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Jury Directions Summing Up Credibility of Witnesses

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Mark Phillip Billingham

Appellant

Justin Billingham

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge gave adequate directions to the jury regarding previous inconsistent statements under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to remind the jury of exculpatory parts of previous statements
  3. 3 Whether the summing up failed to draw together the defence case and relevant exculpatory evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's directions, though not perfect, were sufficiently close to the standard JSB direction and adequately informed the jury of their ability to consider previous inconsistent statements as evidence. The summing up, taken as a whole, was adequate and the convictions are safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld