R v Philip Roe

R v Philip Roe

The evidence regarding Guy Mitchell's arrest was properly admitted by agreement as relevant context for the applicant's communications and was subject to appropriate limiting directions; the additional evidence sought to be adduced was peripheral and would not have affected the outcome; there was no incompetence by the applicant's legal team; and, given the lack of merit in the grounds, no extension of time is justified.

Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Philip Roe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Conviction (out of Time)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal (including extension of time) dismissed
Legal Topics
Bad Character Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Extension of Time, Drug Importation, Firearms Offences, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Criminal Law Bad Character Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Extension of Time Drug Importation Firearms Offences Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Philip Roe

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Conviction (out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of evidence relating to the arrest and charge of a third party (Guy Mitchell) rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's legal team failed to call material witnesses and whether this amounted to incompetence
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for appeal should be granted given the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence regarding Guy Mitchell's arrest was properly admitted by agreement as relevant context for the applicant's communications and was subject to appropriate limiting directions; the additional evidence sought to be adduced was peripheral and would not have affected the outcome; there was no incompetence by the applicant's legal team; and, given the lack of merit in the grounds, no extension of time is justified.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal (including extension of time) dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal conviction dismissed