Dawes, R. v

Dawes, R. v

The trial judge was correct to admit the identification and DNA evidence. The procedural flaws in the identification process went to weight, not admissibility, and were properly left for the jury's assessment. The DNA evidence, though low-level and mixed, was sufficiently reliable for consideration by the jury, and the directions given were adequate. There was no error in refusing a voir dire or in the judge's rulings. The conviction is safe.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Applicant: Shemar Dawes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Conviction After Retrial
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, DNA Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Jury Directions, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Identification Evidence DNA Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Jury Directions Appeal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Shemar Dawes

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Conviction After Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting identification evidence from police officers despite procedural flaws
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting low-level, mixed DNA evidence
  3. 3 Whether a voir dire was required to determine admissibility of identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct to admit the identification and DNA evidence. The procedural flaws in the identification process went to weight, not admissibility, and were properly left for the jury's assessment. The DNA evidence, though low-level and mixed, was sufficiently reliable for consideration by the jury, and the directions given were adequate. There was no error in refusing a voir dire or in the judge's rulings. The conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed