Hall, R v

Hall, R v

The conviction is not unsafe because the unused evidence would not have assisted the appellant's case and could have been damaging; the defence at trial was inconsistent with the unused evidence; the appellant was properly represented and there is no reason to question the safety of the conviction.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Philip John Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Affray, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Safety of Conviction, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Forensic Strategy
Criminal Law Affray Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Safety of Conviction Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Forensic Strategy

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Philip John Hall

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to call certain witnesses or adduce specific evidence rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the conviction on count 4 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) is unsafe in light of unused evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction is not unsafe because the unused evidence would not have assisted the appellant's case and could have been damaging; the defence at trial was inconsistent with the unused evidence; the appellant was properly represented and there is no reason to question the safety of the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction is dismissed