Petch & Anor v R.

Petch & Anor v R.

The disparity in sentences resulting from the prosecution's acceptance of manslaughter pleas in later trials does not affect the safety of the appellants' murder convictions, which were properly reached on the evidence available at their trial. The conduct of the prosecution in subsequent trials, even if arising from the same events, does not amount to an abuse of process or justify quashing the convictions. The law does not permit retrospective review of convictions based on later prosecutorial decisions.

Parties
Appellant: Thomas Petch; Appellant: George Romero Coleman; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Manslaughter, Joint Enterprise, Abuse of Process, Disparity of Sentences, Consistency in Prosecution
Criminal Law Murder Manslaughter Joint Enterprise Abuse of Process Disparity of Sentences Consistency in Prosecution

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Petch

Appellant

George Romero Coleman

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsequent disparity in treatment and sentencing between co-defendants arising from the same events amounts to an abuse of process justifying quashing murder convictions and substituting manslaughter
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's acceptance of pleas to manslaughter in later trials undermines the safety of the appellants' murder convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The disparity in sentences resulting from the prosecution's acceptance of manslaughter pleas in later trials does not affect the safety of the appellants' murder convictions, which were properly reached on the evidence available at their trial. The conduct of the prosecution in subsequent trials, even if arising from the same events, does not amount to an abuse of process or justify quashing the convictions. The law does not permit retrospective review of convictions based on later prosecutorial decisions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed