Yam v R.

Yam v R.

The fresh evidence from three witnesses, even if believed and admissible, could not reasonably have disrupted or diluted the unique evidential web connecting the appellant to the murder; the conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Wang Yam; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Following CCRC Reference
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Murder, Burglary, Theft, Handling Stolen Goods, Fraud, Disclosure, Fresh Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Murder Burglary Theft Handling Stolen Goods Fraud Disclosure Fresh Evidence +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Yam

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Following CCRC Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence renders the conviction for murder unsafe
  2. 2 Whether material non-disclosure denied the defence opportunity to present an alternative suspect
  3. 3 Whether the circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to murder is sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The fresh evidence from three witnesses, even if believed and admissible, could not reasonably have disrupted or diluted the unique evidential web connecting the appellant to the murder; the conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Fresh evidence not admitted.
  • Appellant's conviction for murder is safe.