Grant & Ors v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 143 (13 February 2014)

Grant & Ors v R. [2014] EWCA Crim 143 (13 February 2014)

There is no rule of law or legal principle supporting the argument that convictions for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm with intent arising from the same act and intent are mutually inconsistent; proof of intent to kill necessarily includes intent to cause really serious harm. The trial judge's directions, admission of evidence, and summing up did not render the verdicts unsafe.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 143
Parties
Appellant: Nathaniel Grant; Appellant: Anthony McCalla; Appellant: Kazeem Kolawole; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Grievous Bodily Harm, Joint Enterprise, Transferred Malice, Bad Character Evidence, Admissibility of Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Grievous Bodily Harm Joint Enterprise Transferred Malice Bad Character Evidence Admissibility of Forensic 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathaniel Grant

Appellant

Anthony McCalla

Appellant

Kazeem Kolawole

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm with intent arising from the same act and intent are legally inconsistent
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting gunshot residue evidence against McCalla
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding bad character evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no rule of law or legal principle supporting the argument that convictions for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm with intent arising from the same act and intent are mutually inconsistent; proof of intent to kill necessarily includes intent to cause really serious harm. The trial judge's directions, admission of evidence, and summing up did not render the verdicts unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • renewed applications rejected
  • convictions upheld