Kidd & Anor v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_98 (7 October 2010)

Kidd & Anor v HM Advocate [2010] ScotHC HCJAC_98 (7 October 2010)

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer concert between the appellants in the assaults and attempted murder, including the use of a knife. Both appellants were sufficiently identified as the assailants through a combination of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. The trial judge did not err in refusing no case to answer submissions or in his directions to the jury. The appeals were refused.

Citation
[2010] ScotHC HCJAC_98
Parties
First Appellant: Robert Kidd; Second Appellant: John Tiffoney; Respondent: Her Majesty’s Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals refused
Legal Topics
Assault, Attempted Murder, Identification Evidence, Concerted Criminal Acts, DNA Evidence, No Case to Answer Submission
Criminal Law Assault Attempted Murder Identification Evidence Concerted Criminal Acts DNA Evidence No Case to Answer Submission

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Kidd

First Appellant

John Tiffoney

Second Appellant

Her Majesty’s Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to identify the appellants as perpetrators of the assaults and attempted murder
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of concert (joint criminal enterprise) between the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the use of a knife and knowledge thereof could be attributed to both appellants

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer concert between the appellants in the assaults and attempted murder, including the use of a knife. Both appellants were sufficiently identified as the assailants through a combination of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence. The trial judge did not err in refusing no case to answer submissions or in his directions to the jury. The appeals were refused.

Court Disposition

Appeals refused