Cook v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 6 (19 January 2012)

Cook v R. [2012] EWCA Crim 6 (19 January 2012)

The prosecution may allege that the acquitted co-defendants were probably involved in the conspiracy, provided there is sufficient evidence and appropriate judicial directions are given. The acquitted co-defendants have no right to intervene in the proceedings as Article 6(2) ECHR does not apply post-acquittal, and English law does not recognise such a right in these circumstances.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Crim 6
Parties
Appellant: Sam Cook; Respondent: The Crown; Proposed Intervenor: Patrick Patrick Bryant; Proposed Intervenor: Robert Cook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Ruling Prior to Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; application to intervene refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Acquittal, Presumption of Innocence, Article 6(2) ECHR, Intervention Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Conspiracy Acquittal Presumption of Innocence Article 6(2) ECHR Intervention Rights

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

Parties

Sam Cook

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Patrick Patrick Bryant

Proposed Intervenor

Robert Cook

Proposed Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Ruling Prior to Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution may allege in the appellant's retrial that previously acquitted co-defendants were conspirators
  2. 2 Whether acquitted co-defendants have a right to intervene in ongoing proceedings against a co-defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution may allege that the acquitted co-defendants were probably involved in the conspiracy, provided there is sufficient evidence and appropriate judicial directions are given. The acquitted co-defendants have no right to intervene in the proceedings as Article 6(2) ECHR does not apply post-acquittal, and English law does not recognise such a right in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; application to intervene refused

Orders

  • The indictment should be amended to name only Glen Matthews as a conspirator with the appellant, with others unnamed.
  • The prosecution may allege that the acquitted men were probably involved in the conspiracy, subject to sufficient evidence and judicial direction.