Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Hedges, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 607 (29 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal rejected challenges to conviction and sentence after a fatal knife fight, finding no misdirection, no evidential error, and no manifest excess.
The Court of Appeal rejected challenges to manslaughter and sentence in a knife-fight case, upheld the trial judge’s rulings, and corrected the form of detention ordered.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a conviction for wounding with intent arising from a nightclub shootout, holding the judge correctly applied Gnango principles.
Durrell-Smith v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 463 (17 April 2026)
The Court of Appeal upheld Kimani Durrell-Smith’s conviction for wounding with intent, holding there was evidence to leave a shoot-out liability case to the jury.
The Court of Appeal upheld a 14-year custodial term for manslaughter but quashed the finding of dangerousness and the extended sentence.
Odunewu & Ors v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 444 (27 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal rejected conviction challenges over joinder, no-case submissions, jury directions and fresh psychiatric evidence, but reduced three sentences.
None of the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable; the applicant's criticisms are unparticularised, and the trial process was fair with proper directions given. There was no evidence to support diminished responsibility or procedural unfairness. The extension of time is granted, but leave to appeal is refused.
Source excerpt
The minimum term of 14 years was not manifestly excessive; the judge correctly applied a starting point of 20 years, reflecting the aggravating factor of taking a knife from the kitchen to the garden, and made a substantial reduction for unusually high mitigation. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld Kevin Horswill’s murder conviction, holding the judge correctly excluded disputed bad character evidence about the deceased and properly restricted evidence-in-chief.
The applicant's conviction was not unsafe because he received appropriate accommodations for his ADHD, the trial judge properly directed the jury, and the evidence against him was clear and compelling. There was no failure by his legal representatives that rendered the trial unfair.
Source excerpt
Explore more
