References: Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994, Times 24-Jun-1994, [1995] RTR 239
Ratio: If one defendant claims a defence of duress from fear of the other’s driving, the other driver’s driving convictions are relevant and can be admitted in evidence. Evidence of the convictions of the other driver should have been admitted even though he did not give evidence because they were relevant. Knowledge of his character might well have coloured the jury’s deliberations and bolstered the credibility of Murray’s account. Unless there is simply no nexus whatever between the previous convictions sought to be adduced and the offence alleged against the accused, they should be admitted and admitted in these particular circumstances without any nice distinctions being drawn between the various individual offences recorded in the record.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Randall (EP) CACD (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Crim 436)
The defendant had been a co-accused on a charge of murder. He appealed saying the judge had incorrectly directed the jury on the relevance of his co-accused’s previous convictions for violence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. He should have been . . - Cited – Regina v Randall HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 69, Bailii, Times 19-Dec-03, [2004] 1 Cr App R 26, [2004] 1 All ER 467, [2004] 1 WLR 56)
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . . - Cited – Regina v Southwark Coroner ex parte Fields Admn ([1998] EWHC Admin 111)
The deceased died after being hit by a policemen with his baton when being arrested. The verdict of misadventure was now challenged. The police officer said he had hit out in fear of imminent attack. It was said that the Coroner had permitted those . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 05-Sep-16
Ref: 87397
The post Regina v Murray; CACD 10 Jun 1994 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.