A & Ors v R

A & Ors v R

The trial was so lengthy, disrupted, and inadequately summed up that the jury was deprived of a fair opportunity to reach rational conclusions, rendering the convictions unsafe.

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
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

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

First Appellant

Heppenstall

Second Appellant

Potter

Third Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

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 on the real issues

Ratio Decidendi

The trial was so lengthy, disrupted, and inadequately summed up that the jury was deprived of a fair opportunity to reach rational conclusions, rendering the convictions unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Appeals of all three appellants allowed
  • Court to hear argument on whether a new trial should be ordered