An offender’s conviction for murder was safe where his argument on appeal was essentially that the trial process was rendered unfair by a series of decisions, each of which was beyond criticism, to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence that was properly admissible and probative of his guilt.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Where the victim of a robbery had identified the defendant in the street by twice being driven past him by the police, the second identification, during which police officers had stood by the defendant, did not breach the PACE codes of practice Code D, para.3.4, because there had been only one continuous identification procedure.
In the circumstances evidence of distress was admissible to explain an inconsistent statement made by a victim of rape. The exercise of discretion not to warn the jury of the need for caution when considering the victim’s evidence was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
A defendant in a joint trial had an unquestionable right to lead relevant evidence including evidence of an admission made by the co-defendant, even though not used by the Crown, and evidence of the defendant’s previous aggressive behaviour which could go to propensity.
The appellant’s conviction was rendered unsafe by the exclusion of evidence which suggested that another may have committed the offence.