Bennett & Anor, R. v

Bennett & Anor, R. v

The evidence of the previous inconsistent statements was admissible under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The trial judge properly exercised discretion under section 78 and section 114(2) and was entitled to leave the case to the jury. The evidence was not so unconvincing as to render the convictions unsafe. The jury was entitled to find Bennett a participant in the joint enterprise. The appeals are dismissed.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Simon Adam Bennett; Appellant: Christopher Andrew Turner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Previous Inconsistent Statements, No Case to Answer, Joint Enterprise, Fair Trial
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Previous Inconsistent Statements No Case to Answer Joint Enterprise Fair Trial

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Simon Adam Bennett

Appellant

Christopher Andrew Turner

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting previous inconsistent statements under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  3. 3 Whether the case should have been withdrawn from the jury under the Galbraith test or section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the previous inconsistent statements was admissible under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The trial judge properly exercised discretion under section 78 and section 114(2) and was entitled to leave the case to the jury. The evidence was not so unconvincing as to render the convictions unsafe. The jury was entitled to find Bennett a participant in the joint enterprise. The appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed