G(G) and B(S), R. v

G(G) and B(S), R. v

The evidence of the former co-defendant was not demonstrated to be reliable or compelling; his motives were self-serving and manipulative, and his evidence was not of the kind that could justify the exceptional step of quashing an acquittal under the statutory test.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: G(G); Respondent: B(S)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Quashing Acquittal, New and Compelling Evidence, Interests of Justice, Retrial
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Quashing Acquittal New and Compelling Evidence Interests of Justice Retrial

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

G(G)

Respondent

B(S)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is new and compelling evidence to justify quashing the acquittals under s 76 CJA 2003
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to order a retrial under s 79 CJA 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the former co-defendant was not demonstrated to be reliable or compelling; his motives were self-serving and manipulative, and his evidence was not of the kind that could justify the exceptional step of quashing an acquittal under the statutory test.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application to quash the acquittals is refused.
  • Reporting restrictions are imposed on the main judgment pursuant to s 4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 until further order.