Golds, R v

Golds, R v

The judge was not in error in admitting the bad character evidence, in refusing to admit Dr Blandford's voir dire evidence, or in declining to define 'substantial' beyond its ordinary meaning. The directions given were adequate and the conviction was safe.

Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Mark Richard Golds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Jury Directions, Admissibility of Evidence, Bad Character Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Diminished Responsibility Jury Directions Admissibility of Evidence Bad Character Evidence

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

Parties

R

Respondent

Mark Richard Golds

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting bad character evidence from Stevie Allen
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to adequately direct the jury regarding the bad character evidence
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit Dr Blandford's voir dire evidence before the jury

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was not in error in admitting the bad character evidence, in refusing to admit Dr Blandford's voir dire evidence, or in declining to define 'substantial' beyond its ordinary meaning. The directions given were adequate and the conviction was safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed