Jones & Anor, R v

Jones & Anor, R v

The convictions were unsafe due to misdirection regarding exculpatory evidence, failure to warn the jury about co-defendant evidence in cut-throat defences, and, in Jenkins' case, the existence of fresh evidence capable of belief that exonerated him. These errors rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Wayne Daniel Jones; Appellant: Mathew Jenkins; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
Murder, Appeal, Misdirection, Fresh Evidence, Cut Throat Defence, Jury Directions, Retrial
Criminal Law Murder Appeal Misdirection Fresh Evidence Cut Throat Defence Jury Directions Retrial

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Daniel Jones

Appellant

Mathew Jenkins

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding exculpatory evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to warn the jury about the dangers of accepting co-defendant evidence in cut-throat defences
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the possibility of fatal injuries being caused by a road traffic accident

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were unsafe due to misdirection regarding exculpatory evidence, failure to warn the jury about co-defendant evidence in cut-throat defences, and, in Jenkins' case, the existence of fresh evidence capable of belief that exonerated him. These errors rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe, warranting a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; retrial ordered.

Orders

  • Both appeals against conviction allowed.
  • Convictions quashed.