Grant & Ors v R [2015] EWCA Crim 1815 (20 November 2015)

Grant & Ors v R [2015] EWCA Crim 1815 (20 November 2015)

Despite police impropriety and non-disclosure, the convictions are safe because the main prosecution witness's evidence was broadly consistent across both trials, the defence had sufficient material to challenge her credibility, and the undisclosed material would not have likely changed the jury's verdict.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Crim 1815
Parties
1st Appellant: Gavin Grant; 2nd Appellant: Damian Martin Williams; 3rd Appellant: Gareth Damon Downie; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Non Disclosure, Witness Credibility, Police Misconduct, Disclosure Obligations, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Non Disclosure Witness Credibility Police Misconduct Disclosure Obligations Appeal Against Conviction

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gavin Grant

1st Appellant

Damian Martin Williams

2nd Appellant

Gareth Damon Downie

3rd Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure of material relating to the main prosecution witness rendered the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether police impropriety in providing an unauthorised 'text' to the witness's legal representatives undermined the safety of the convictions

Ratio Decidendi

Despite police impropriety and non-disclosure, the convictions are safe because the main prosecution witness's evidence was broadly consistent across both trials, the defence had sufficient material to challenge her credibility, and the undisclosed material would not have likely changed the jury's verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld