Quinn & Anor, R. v [2017] EWCA 1071 (Crim) (26 July 2017)

Quinn & Anor, R. v [2017] EWCA 1071 (Crim) (26 July 2017)

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused because the applicants failed to meet the substantial injustice test required for exceptional leave following a change in the law on joint enterprise, the trial judge's directions and rulings were correct, the fresh evidence from Mallen was not credible, and the judge's comments were not unduly prejudicial.

Citation
[2017] EWCA 1071 (Crim)
Parties
Respondent: R; 1st Appellant: Daniel John Patrick Quinn; 2nd Appellant: Michelle Casterton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Secondary Liability, Fresh Evidence, Adverse Inferences, Causing or Allowing the Death of a Vulnerable Adult, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Secondary Liability Fresh Evidence Adverse Inferences Causing or Allowing the Death of a Vulnerable Adult Appeals Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Daniel John Patrick Quinn

1st Appellant

Michelle Casterton

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's directions on joint enterprise were flawed in light of R v Jogee
  2. 2 Whether the judge was wrong to reject submissions of no case on the section 5 offence (causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable adult) and on the murder count
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence from a co-defendant rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused because the applicants failed to meet the substantial injustice test required for exceptional leave following a change in the law on joint enterprise, the trial judge's directions and rulings were correct, the fresh evidence from Mallen was not credible, and the judge's comments were not unduly prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused