Shiel, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 386 (27 March 2026)

Shiel, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 386 (27 March 2026)

The trial judge correctly applied the res gestae principle, considering all relevant factors and concluding that the possibility of concoction or distortion could be disregarded despite the complainant's lies about the baby's whereabouts. The evidence was contemporaneous, made while the complainant was emotionally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Crim 386
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Michael Shiel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Res Gestae, Unlawful Wounding, Admissibility of Evidence, Section 78 PACE, Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Res Gestae Unlawful Wounding Admissibility of Evidence Section 78 PACE Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Michael Shiel

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting as res gestae evidence two oral statements made by the alleged victim, who did not give evidence, where those statements included a demonstrable lie.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1978 due to adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly applied the res gestae principle, considering all relevant factors and concluding that the possibility of concoction or distortion could be disregarded despite the complainant's lies about the baby's whereabouts. The evidence was contemporaneous, made while the complainant was emotionally overpowered, and there was no real opportunity for fabrication. The judge's decision to admit the evidence and to refuse exclusion under section 78 PACE was within her discretion and justified on the facts. The conviction was therefore safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.