Chattoo & Ors v R
It is neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to receive Mr Arnold's evidence; the defence had all relevant material at trial, Mr Dyson was competent, and the new evidence does not afford any ground for allowing the appeal but amounts to a difference of expert opinion.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Chattoo; Appellant: Levan Simeon Menzies; Appellant: Nigel Junior Ramsey; Appellant: Denzel Emanuel Ramsey; Respondent: Regina
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Fresh Expert Evidence, Murder, Attempted Murder, Forensic Evidence, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 S.23
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Chattoo
Appellant
Levan Simeon Menzies
Appellant
Nigel Junior Ramsey
Appellant
Denzel Emanuel Ramsey
Appellant
Regina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should receive new expert evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
- 2 Whether the convictions for murder and attempted murder are unsafe due to forensic evidence issues
Ratio Decidendi
It is neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to receive Mr Arnold's evidence; the defence had all relevant material at trial, Mr Dyson was competent, and the new evidence does not afford any ground for allowing the appeal but amounts to a difference of expert opinion.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment