Walker & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1488 (11 November 2022)

Walker & Ors, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1488 (11 November 2022)

The procedures adopted in compelling and obtaining evidence from the reluctant witness did not render the trial unfair or the convictions unsafe; the trial judge's decisions on the admissibility of evidence and directions to the jury were within the proper exercise of discretion; there was no material prejudice to the appellants; the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the facts and roles of the parties.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1488
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Appellant 1: Peter Walker; Appellant 2: Melissa Stubbs; Appellant 3: Aaron Stubbs; Appellant 4: Stephen Strutt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Witness Evidence, Appeal Procedure, Bad Character Evidence, Hearsay, Joint Enterprise, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Witness Evidence Appeal Procedure Bad Character Evidence Hearsay Joint Enterprise Sentencing

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

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Peter Walker

Appellant 1

Melissa Stubbs

Appellant 2

Aaron Stubbs

Appellant 3

Stephen Strutt

Appellant 4

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedure for compelling and obtaining evidence from a reluctant prosecution witness (Andrew Carney) rendered the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit further bad character evidence of the deceased
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting WhatsApp messages relating to the appellant's intent

Ratio Decidendi

The procedures adopted in compelling and obtaining evidence from the reluctant witness did not render the trial unfair or the convictions unsafe; the trial judge's decisions on the admissibility of evidence and directions to the jury were within the proper exercise of discretion; there was no material prejudice to the appellants; the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the facts and roles of the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed