Adams & Anor, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 6 (28th January, 2000)

All counts were properly joined and evidence was fit for jury consideration; identification evidence was admissible and convictions were safe; specified periods for life sentences should be recalculated to reflect proper determinate periods and remand time.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2000] EWCA Crim 6
Parties: Applicant: William Harding; Applicant: David Anthony Adams; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeals Against Sentence
Outcome: Appeals against conviction refused; appeals against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics: Robbery, Firearms Offences, Identification Evidence, Sentencing, Severance of Counts

Criminal Law Robbery Firearms Offences Identification Evidence Sentencing Severance of Counts

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9

Parties

William Harding

Applicant

David Anthony Adams

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Appeals Against Sentence

Legal Issues

1 Whether offences should have been tried separately (severance)
2 Admissibility of street identification evidence
3 Sufficiency and safety of identification evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction refused; appeals against sentence allowed in part

Orders

Specified period for Harding reduced to nine years three hundred and fifty nine days
Specified period for Adams reduced to six years three hundred and fifty nine days

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.