Yam v R.

Yam v R.

The conviction for murder and associated fraud was safe as the evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent use of the deceased's identity and bank accounts was compelling, and the jury was entitled to infer guilt of murder. The in camera hearings were necessary and did not render the conviction unsafe. Identification and voice evidence was properly admitted and summed up. The verdict on count 4 was defective and quashed, but did not preclude retrial on counts 1-3. The sentence imposed was appropriate and not excessive.

Parties
Appellant: Wang Yam; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence refused; conviction on count 4 quashed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Fraud, Burglary, Handling Stolen Goods, In Camera Proceedings, Identification Evidence, Voice Recognition, Abuse of Process, Appeal Procedure, Sentencing
Criminal Law Murder Fraud Burglary Handling Stolen Goods In Camera Proceedings Identification Evidence Voice Recognition +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Yam

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction for murder and associated fraud was safe
  2. 2 Whether in camera hearings rendered the conviction unsafe
  3. 3 Whether identification and voice evidence was properly admitted and summed up

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for murder and associated fraud was safe as the evidence linking the appellant to the fraudulent use of the deceased's identity and bank accounts was compelling, and the jury was entitled to infer guilt of murder. The in camera hearings were necessary and did not render the conviction unsafe. Identification and voice evidence was properly admitted and summed up. The verdict on count 4 was defective and quashed, but did not preclude retrial on counts 1-3. The sentence imposed was appropriate and not excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence refused; conviction on count 4 quashed.

Orders

  • Conviction on count 4 quashed
  • Leave to appeal granted on limited grounds