Rhodes, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 1411 (25 November 2024)

The new evidence from R is compelling within the meaning of section 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it is reliable, substantial, and highly probative of RHODES' guilt. Despite inconsistencies and missing evidence, the trial process can accommodate these issues and a fair trial is likely. Therefore, it is in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] EWCA Crim 1411
Parties: Applicant: Rex; Respondent: Robert Rhodes
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 November 2024
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial
Outcome: Acquittal quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics: Double Jeopardy, Fresh Evidence, Acquittal Quashing, Retrial, Murder, Interests of Justice, Reliability of Witness Evidence

Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Fresh Evidence Acquittal Quashing Retrial Murder Interests of Justice Reliability of Witness Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Rex

Applicant

Robert Rhodes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial

Legal Issues

1 Whether new evidence from witness R is sufficiently reliable, substantial, and highly probative to be 'compelling' under section 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to quash the acquittal and order a retrial under section 79 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Acquittal quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

Acquittal of Robert Rhodes quashed
Retrial of Robert Rhodes ordered on an indictment containing five counts including murder

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.