Power, R v [2016] NICC 16 (30 November 2016)

Power, R v [2016] NICC 16 (30 November 2016)

Taking the evidence as a whole, including Power's presence at the scene, attempts to mislead police, forensic evidence, and disposal of clothing, a jury properly directed could conclude that Power was present and encouraging the assault, thus there is a case to answer.

Citation
[2016] NICC 16
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Christopher Power
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer at Conclusion of Crown Case
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer refused; case to proceed to jury.
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, No Case to Answer, Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise No Case to Answer Circumstantial Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Christopher Power

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer at Conclusion of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence for the case against Christopher Power to go to the jury on the charge of murder under joint enterprise principles

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the evidence as a whole, including Power's presence at the scene, attempts to mislead police, forensic evidence, and disposal of clothing, a jury properly directed could conclude that Power was present and encouraging the assault, thus there is a case to answer.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer refused; case to proceed to jury.