R v Samuel Channell

R v Samuel Channell

The trial judge's refusal to adjourn for expert evidence was within his discretion given the straightforward identification issue and quality of CCTV evidence. The fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand does not meet admissibility requirements and was not properly raised. The conviction is not arguably unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Samuel Channell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Robbery, Visual Identification, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Fresh Evidence, Trial Adjournment
Criminal Law Robbery Visual Identification Admissibility of Expert Evidence Fresh Evidence Trial Adjournment

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 expert facial mapping evidence
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand should be admitted
  3. 3 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's refusal to adjourn for expert evidence was within his discretion given the straightforward identification issue and quality of CCTV evidence. The fresh evidence regarding the perpetrator's hand does not meet admissibility requirements and was not properly raised. The conviction is not arguably unsafe.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against conviction is refused