Lowe & Ors, R v

Lowe & Ors, R v

The trial judge's rulings on admissibility of the defence statement, jury directions, and refusal to discharge the jury were correct; the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and scale of the conspiracy and the roles of the appellants. No manifest error or excess was found except for Jason Smith and Stephen Smith, whose sentences were reduced to reflect proportionality.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Paul Lowe; Appellant: Anthony Parkinson; Appellant: Martin Desmond Neary; Appellant: Mark Andrew Davey; Appellant: Anthony Ellis; Appellant: Stephen Paul Smith; Applicant: Carl Emerson Frederick; Appellant: Brian Hillhands; Appellant: Jason Giles Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; most appeals against sentence dismissed; sentence reductions for Jason Smith and Stephen Smith.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs, Sentencing, Admissibility of Defence Statements, Jury Directions, Identification Evidence, Appeals Against Conviction, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Supply Controlled Drugs Sentencing Admissibility of Defence Statements Jury Directions Identification Evidence Appeals Against Conviction Appeals Against Sentence

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 21
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Paul Lowe

Appellant

Anthony Parkinson

Appellant

Martin Desmond Neary

Appellant

Mark Andrew Davey

Appellant

Anthony Ellis

Appellant

Stephen Paul Smith

Appellant

Carl Emerson Frederick

Applicant

Brian Hillhands

Appellant

Jason Giles Smith

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit the defence statement before the jury
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions on conspiracy and identification were correct
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have discharged the jury due to alleged prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's rulings on admissibility of the defence statement, jury directions, and refusal to discharge the jury were correct; the sentences imposed reflected the seriousness and scale of the conspiracy and the roles of the appellants. No manifest error or excess was found except for Jason Smith and Stephen Smith, whose sentences were reduced to reflect proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; most appeals against sentence dismissed; sentence reductions for Jason Smith and Stephen Smith.

Orders

  • Appeals against conviction of Lowe, Parkinson, Davey, Neary, Ellis, Hillhands dismissed.
  • Appeals against sentence of Lowe, Parkinson, Neary, Davey, Ellis, Hillhands dismissed.