Quinn & Anor, R. v

Quinn & Anor, R. v

The applicants failed to demonstrate substantial injustice as required for exceptional leave to appeal based on a change in the law on joint enterprise. The trial judge's directions, even if not Jogee-compliant, would not have affected the outcome given the overwhelming evidence of participation and encouragement in the fatal assault. The section 5 offence was properly left to the jury, and the fresh evidence from Mallen was not credible. The judge's comments on failure to give evidence were not unduly prejudicial.

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 / Judgment on Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Fresh Evidence, Adverse Inference, Causing or Allowing the Death of a Vulnerable Adult, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Fresh Evidence Adverse Inference Causing or Allowing the Death of a Vulnerable Adult Appeal 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 / 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 erred in refusing submissions of no case to answer on murder and section 5 offences
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence from a co-defendant rendered the convictions unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate substantial injustice as required for exceptional leave to appeal based on a change in the law on joint enterprise. The trial judge's directions, even if not Jogee-compliant, would not have affected the outcome given the overwhelming evidence of participation and encouragement in the fatal assault. The section 5 offence was properly left to the jury, and the fresh evidence from Mallen was not credible. The judge's comments on failure to give evidence were not unduly prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction refused.