Davis (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Bahamas)

Davis (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Bahamas)

The Privy Council held that Campbell’s identification of Stubbs was properly treated as recognition, not a dock identification, and the judge was entitled to permit it. The judge’s directions on identification evidence were adequate. The admission of Scott’s deposition and prior trial evidence was proper and the judge exercised his discretion correctly. The fresh evidence about Scott’s employment status was not admitted as it could have been obtained earlier and would not have affected the verdict. The ballistics report was properly admitted through another expert, and the judge’s exercise of discretion was upheld. The hearsay statements at the scene were not improperly admitted. The...

Citation
[2018] UKPC 30
Parties
Appellant: Stubbs; Appellant: Davis; Respondent (stubbs & Davis Appeals) / Appellant (evans Appeal): The Queen; Respondent (crown Appeal): Evans
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment From the Privy Council
Outcome
Appeals by Stubbs and Davis against conviction dismissed; Crown’s appeal against Evans not allowed; sentences of Stubbs and Davis affirmed as imposed by the Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Hearsay, Dock Identification, Fair Trial Rights, Admissibility of Depositions, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Ballistics Evidence, Constitutional Rights
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Hearsay Dock Identification Fair Trial Rights Admissibility of Depositions Fresh Evidence on Appeal +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stubbs

Appellant

Davis

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent (stubbs & Davis Appeals) / Appellant (evans Appeal)

Evans

Respondent (crown Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment From the Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting dock identification and failed to give adequate directions on identification evidence
  2. 2 Whether the admission of Scott’s deposition and prior trial evidence was proper and whether it should have been edited to remove dock identification
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence regarding Scott’s employment status should have been admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The Privy Council held that Campbell’s identification of Stubbs was properly treated as recognition, not a dock identification, and the judge was entitled to permit it. The judge’s directions on identification evidence were adequate. The admission of Scott’s deposition and prior trial evidence was proper and the judge exercised his discretion correctly. The fresh evidence about Scott’s employment status was not admitted as it could have been obtained earlier and would not have affected the verdict. The ballistics report was properly admitted through another expert, and the judge’s exercise of discretion was upheld. The hearsay statements at the scene were not improperly admitted. The...

Court Disposition

Appeals by Stubbs and Davis against conviction dismissed; Crown’s appeal against Evans not allowed; sentences of Stubbs and Davis affirmed as imposed by the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Stubbs’s and Davis’s appeals against conviction are dismissed.
  • Sentences of 45 years’ imprisonment for Stubbs and Davis affirmed.