Ebcin & Ors v R

Ebcin & Ors v R

There was no undisclosed material that might have undermined the prosecution case or assisted the defence; severance was necessary and did not render the trials unfair; refusal to appoint special counsel was justified; the evidence admitted was fair; the Lucas direction, though inappropriate, did not render the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mehmet Ebcin; Applicant: Abdurrahnan Gencer; Applicant: Murat Ozturk; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
permission to appeal refused; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Severance, Special Counsel, Admissibility of Evidence, Lucas Direction, Acquittal Evidence, Prosecutorial Conduct
Criminal Law Disclosure Severance Special Counsel Admissibility of Evidence Lucas Direction Acquittal Evidence Prosecutorial Conduct

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mehmet Ebcin

Applicant

Abdurrahnan Gencer

Applicant

Murat Ozturk

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution's test for disclosure of information relating to a co-accused's history as an informant was too narrow
  2. 2 Whether severance of trials denied the applicants a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether refusal to appoint special counsel was erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

There was no undisclosed material that might have undermined the prosecution case or assisted the defence; severance was necessary and did not render the trials unfair; refusal to appoint special counsel was justified; the evidence admitted was fair; the Lucas direction, though inappropriate, did not render the conviction unsafe; refusal to admit evidence of a co-accused's acquittal was correct; and prosecutorial comments did not affect the safety of the convictions.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused; convictions upheld