Gray, R v

Gray, R v

The conviction is unsafe because the expert evidence of Mr Harrow was a significant plank of the Crown's case, and without it, the remaining evidence was insufficient to say the jury would inevitably have convicted. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Paul Edward Gray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Identification, Unsafe Conviction, Facial Mapping, Retrial
Criminal Law Expert Evidence Identification Unsafe Conviction Facial Mapping Retrial

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Paul Edward Gray

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to reliance on discredited expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether a retrial should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is unsafe because the expert evidence of Mr Harrow was a significant plank of the Crown's case, and without it, the remaining evidence was insufficient to say the jury would inevitably have convicted. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Fresh indictment to be preferred within two months