Onyeabor, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 534 (06 March 2009)
The statements made by OJ to the undercover officers were admissible against the applicant as they were made in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise, and the trial judge correctly admitted them. There was no error of law or unfairness in the proceedings, and the conviction is safe.
- Citation
- [2009] EWCA Crim 534
- Parties
- Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Valentine Onyeabor
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Joint Enterprise, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Prosecution
Valentine Onyeabor
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether statements made by an accomplice in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise are admissible against the applicant
- 2 Whether such evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 due to prejudice
Ratio Decidendi
The statements made by OJ to the undercover officers were admissible against the applicant as they were made in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise, and the trial judge correctly admitted them. There was no error of law or unfairness in the proceedings, and the conviction is safe.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment