Woolfall, R. v

Woolfall, R. v

The prosecution was entitled to advance its case and the cross-examination was proper; the applicant was not misled or put in a false position, and there was no unfairness warranting leave to appeal.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Stephen David Woolfall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Joint Enterprise, Cross Examination, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Joint Enterprise Cross Examination 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Stephen David Woolfall

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the prosecution was entitled to put the case that the applicant took the leading role in the attack
  2. 2 whether the cross-examination of the applicant was improper and unfair
  3. 3 whether the judge should have directed the jury to undo alleged harm

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was entitled to advance its case and the cross-examination was proper; the applicant was not misled or put in a false position, and there was no unfairness warranting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; extension of time granted

Orders

  • extension of time granted
  • application for leave to appeal against conviction refused