Laing & Anor, R.

Laing & Anor, R.

There was no breach of Code D as the witness could not identify his attackers; the identification by DC Carter was reliable and properly admitted; the jury directions, though not perfect, were sufficient and did not render the verdict unsafe; evidence of association with the car was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; the judge's comments on silence and failure to give evidence did not affect the safety of the verdict.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Warren Laing; Appellant: Damian Loughman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; renewed application refused
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Appeals Against Conviction, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Code D, Jury Directions, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Appeals Against Conviction Police and Criminal Evidence Act (pace) Code D Jury Directions Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Warren Laing

Appellant

Damian Loughman

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting identification evidence by a police officer from CCTV
  2. 2 Whether failure to hold a VIPER identification procedure breached Code D of PACE
  3. 3 Whether the judge's jury directions were adequate regarding identification evidence and the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of Code D as the witness could not identify his attackers; the identification by DC Carter was reliable and properly admitted; the jury directions, though not perfect, were sufficient and did not render the verdict unsafe; evidence of association with the car was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; the judge's comments on silence and failure to give evidence did not affect the safety of the verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; renewed application refused