R v Peter Murray & Ors.

R v Peter Murray & Ors.

The trial judge was correct to refuse adjournment for speculative or indefinite reasons, to exclude late or derivative expert evidence, and to admit EncroChat material as previously determined by binding appellate authority. The judge's rulings on hearsay evidence and sentence were within discretion and supported by the facts and applicable law. There was no unfairness or error rendering the convictions unsafe or the sentences manifestly excessive.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant: Peter Murray; Appellant: Danny Brown; Appellant: Stefan Baldauf; Appellant: Philip Lawson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Interception of Communications, Drug Trafficking, Sentencing, Hearsay Evidence
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Interception of Communications Drug Trafficking Sentencing Hearsay 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Peter Murray

Appellant

Danny Brown

Appellant

Stefan Baldauf

Appellant

Philip Lawson

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to adjourn the trial pending the outcome of Investigatory Powers Tribunal proceedings or to enable further expert evidence on EncroChat material
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit expert evidence from Ms Saunders or Professor Anderson
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude EncroChat evidence under section 78 of PACE

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to refuse adjournment for speculative or indefinite reasons, to exclude late or derivative expert evidence, and to admit EncroChat material as previously determined by binding appellate authority. The judge's rulings on hearsay evidence and sentence were within discretion and supported by the facts and applicable law. There was no unfairness or error rendering the convictions unsafe or the sentences manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave to appeal refused.