Cook v R.

Cook v R.

Prosecution may allege acquitted co-conspirators were probably involved in conspiracy at appellant's retrial, subject to sufficient evidence and proper jury directions; acquitted co-conspirators have no right to intervene as Article 6(2) ECHR does not apply post-acquittal.

Parties
Appellant: Sam Cook; Respondent: The Crown; Proposed Intervenor: Patrick Bryant; Proposed Intervenor: Robert Cook
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Evidentiary/procedural Issue Prior to Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; intervention application refused.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Presumption of Innocence, Acquittal, Article 6(2) ECHR, Intervention Rights
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Conspiracy Presumption of Innocence Acquittal 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Cook

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Patrick Bryant

Proposed Intervenor

Robert Cook

Proposed Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Decision on Evidentiary/procedural Issue Prior to Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution may allege acquitted co-conspirators are conspirators in retrial of appellant
  2. 2 Whether acquitted co-conspirators have locus to intervene in ongoing proceedings against appellant

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution may allege acquitted co-conspirators were probably involved in conspiracy at appellant's retrial, subject to sufficient evidence and proper jury directions; acquitted co-conspirators have no right to intervene as Article 6(2) ECHR does not apply post-acquittal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; intervention application refused.

Orders

  • Prosecution may allege acquitted co-conspirators were probably involved, subject to sufficient evidence and proper directions.
  • Indictment to be amended to name Glen Matthews only as conspirator, with others unnamed.