A & Ors v R [2007] EWCA Crim 2485 (25 October 2007)

A & Ors v R [2007] EWCA Crim 2485 (25 October 2007)

The trial process was so defective due to excessive length, frequent and prolonged disruptions, and an inadequate summing-up that failed to direct the jury on the real issues, that the appellants were deprived of a fair opportunity to have the jury reach rational conclusions, rendering the convictions unsafe.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Crim 2485
Parties
First Appellant: A; Second Appellant: Heppenstall; Third Appellant: Potter; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial at Crown Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Customs and Excise, Fair Trial, Case Management, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Conspiracy Customs and Excise Fair Trial Case Management Jury Directions

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

First Appellant

Heppenstall

Second Appellant

Potter

Third Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial at Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the length and disruption of the trial rendered the proceedings unfair and the convictions unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the judge's summing-up was inadequate and failed to direct the jury properly on the issues

Ratio Decidendi

The trial process was so defective due to excessive length, frequent and prolonged disruptions, and an inadequate summing-up that failed to direct the jury on the real issues, that the appellants were deprived of a fair opportunity to have the jury reach rational conclusions, rendering the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed.

Orders

  • Convictions of all three appellants quashed.
  • Court to hear argument on whether a new trial should be ordered.