Walker, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1956 (17 December 2021)

Walker, R. v [2021] EWCA Crim 1956 (17 December 2021)

The unanimous expert evidence did not exclude the realistic possibility that intoxication alone caused the deceased's reduced consciousness at the material time, and the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries or strangulation made a significant contribution. Therefore, there was no case to answer on causation and the judge's ruling was correct.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Crim 1956
Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: Gary Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling
Outcome
application refused; respondent acquitted
Legal Topics
Causation, Murder, Manslaughter, No Case to Answer, Expert Evidence
Criminal Law Causation Murder Manslaughter No Case to Answer Expert Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

Gary Walker

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling there was no case to answer on causation for murder or manslaughter
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence excluded intoxication as the sole cause of reduced consciousness leading to death
  3. 3 Whether lies and non-expert evidence could support causation

Ratio Decidendi

The unanimous expert evidence did not exclude the realistic possibility that intoxication alone caused the deceased's reduced consciousness at the material time, and the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries or strangulation made a significant contribution. Therefore, there was no case to answer on causation and the judge's ruling was correct.

Court Disposition

application refused; respondent acquitted

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • Ruling terminating proceedings confirmed