Channell, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1183 (13 September 2023)

Channell, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1183 (13 September 2023)

The trial judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment as the identification issue was straightforward, the CCTV evidence was of good quality, and no expert report was available. The fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility and was not raised at trial. The conviction is not arguably unsafe.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1183
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Samuel Channell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Robbery, Visual Identification, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Judicial Discretion to Adjourn
Criminal Law Robbery Visual Identification Admissibility of Expert Evidence Fresh Evidence on Appeal Judicial Discretion to Adjourn

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Samuel Channell

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to adjourn the trial to allow the defence to obtain expert facial mapping evidence
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to alleged deficiencies in identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment as the identification issue was straightforward, the CCTV evidence was of good quality, and no expert report was available. The fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility and was not raised at trial. The conviction is not arguably unsafe.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against conviction refused