Devon, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 388 (17 February 2006)

Devon, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 388 (17 February 2006)

The Court found that the fresh evidence from Stanley Washington was not credible and therefore inadmissible under section 23. The exclusion of the Altaris log was an error, but not material to the safety of the conviction as its contents were already before the jury. The further evidence regarding the gate and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 388
Parties
Appellant: Paul Devon; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; renewed application for leave dismissed
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Justice, Harassment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Admissibility of Evidence, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Perverting the Course of Justice Harassment Fresh Evidence on Appeal Admissibility of Evidence Identification Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Devon

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the police Altaris log was an error and if so, whether it rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether further evidence regarding the physical state of the gate and the cause of the broken window should be admitted as fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the fresh evidence from Stanley Washington was not credible and therefore inadmissible under section 23. The exclusion of the Altaris log was an error, but not material to the safety of the conviction as its contents were already before the jury. The further evidence regarding the gate and window was either not credible or could have been adduced at trial. The convictions were safe and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; renewed application for leave dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction on count 1 dismissed
  • Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction on count 2 dismissed