Branchflower, R v

Branchflower, R v

The judge's summing-up sufficiently identified the issues and the defence for the jury; the section 35 direction was proper; the absence of a section 34 direction did not affect the safety of the conviction; it was reasonable and correct not to call psychiatric evidence; and the advice to plead guilty to manslaughter was proper. None of the grounds advanced undermined the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Defendant: Paul Lee Branchflower
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction Following Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Adverse Inference, Legal Advice, Summing Up, Psychiatric Evidence, Plea Advice
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Adverse Inference Legal Advice Summing Up Psychiatric Evidence Plea Advice

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Paul Lee Branchflower

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction Following Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to adequately sum up the defence case
  2. 2 Whether there was misdirection as to adverse inference from the defendant's decision not to give evidence (section 35)
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to direct on adverse inference from 'no comment' answers in interview (section 34)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's summing-up sufficiently identified the issues and the defence for the jury; the section 35 direction was proper; the absence of a section 34 direction did not affect the safety of the conviction; it was reasonable and correct not to call psychiatric evidence; and the advice to plead guilty to manslaughter was proper. None of the grounds advanced undermined the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed