Seddon, R v

Seddon, R v

There was no deficiency in the trial judge's directions regarding expert evidence or the joint expert statement. The jury was properly directed, and the alleged inconsistency in expert evidence was clearly put before them. No specific legal direction was required, and the convictions are safe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Stephen Seddon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeals, Murder, Attempted Murder, Expert Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Appeals Murder Attempted Murder Expert Evidence Jury Directions

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

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Stephen Seddon

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the significance of a joint expert statement and the approach to expert evidence where one expert departs from the joint statement.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no deficiency in the trial judge's directions regarding expert evidence or the joint expert statement. The jury was properly directed, and the alleged inconsistency in expert evidence was clearly put before them. No specific legal direction was required, and the convictions are safe.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused