Compton & Ors v R. [2002] EWCA Crim 2835 (11 December 2002)

Compton & Ors v R. [2002] EWCA Crim 2835 (11 December 2002)

The Court held that the MSA expert evidence was properly admitted and not rendered unsafe by the collection or counting methods, that the criticisms of the data base were not supported by statistical evidence and did not undermine the striking difference in contamination levels, that the section 36 direction was adequate and fair, that there was a case to answer for conspiracy against Robert Compton, and that the sentences imposed were not excessive or disparate. All grounds of appeal were rejected.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 2835
Parties
Appellant: Robert Compton; Appellant: Stephen Compton; Appellant: Sean Compton; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Conspiracy, Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Section 36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Appeals Against Conviction, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Drug Offences Conspiracy Possession of Proceeds of Crime Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Section 36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 +2 more

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

Parties

Robert Compton

Appellant

Stephen Compton

Appellant

Sean Compton

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert evidence from Mass Spec Analytical Ltd (MSA) regarding heroin contamination of banknotes was properly admitted and reliable
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's direction under section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was appropriate and adequate
  3. 3 Whether there was a case to answer for conspiracy against Robert Compton

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the MSA expert evidence was properly admitted and not rendered unsafe by the collection or counting methods, that the criticisms of the data base were not supported by statistical evidence and did not undermine the striking difference in contamination levels, that the section 36 direction was adequate and fair, that there was a case to answer for conspiracy against Robert Compton, and that the sentences imposed were not excessive or disparate. All grounds of appeal were rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed