R v Awoyemi and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Hallett |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Crim 668 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2014/01669/B1 2014/01792/B1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 08 June 2016 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Rajae Heslop v R
...was borne out by the writings of Heslop and Hassan. The judge referred to part of the judgment of Hallett LJ in R v Awoyemi and Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 668; [2016] 4 WLR 114, at paragraphs 34, which included the following: “Gangs will not necessarily commit their specific feuds to writing or......
-
Abdirizak Hussein Abdi v R
...a comprehensive review of the law with particular reference to Lewis and others [2014] 1 Cr App R 1, Myers [2016] AC 314, Awoyemi [2016] EWCA Crim 668, Sode and others [2017] EWCA Crim 705 and H and others [2018] EWCA Crim 2868. The core principles he set out were these. Gang evidence w......
-
Aaron Leathem and Another v R
...evidence in this case was akin to evidence of gang affiliation and activities which are regularly held to be admissible under s.101 (see R v. Awoyemi [2016] EWCA Crim 668 and R v. Garfield-Stewart [2016] Crim 447; and see generally R v. Myers [2016] AC 314 at common law). The mere fact that......
-
R v Abul Faiz
...is reasonably capable of demonstrating gang membership may be admitted. The judge took into account R v Lewis [2014] EWCA Crim 48 and R v Awoyemi [2016] EWCA Crim 668. He was entitled to rule that the evidence was admissible. Ground 4 This in effect repeats the theme of Grounds 1 and 2. T......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Non-conviction Bad Character Evidence and Directions to the Jury on Use to Show Propensity R v Mitchell [2016] UKSC 55
...has been mentioned in several other decisions of the Court of Appeal (most recently in RvStewart[2016] EWCA Crim 447 and RvAwoyemi [2016] 4 WLR 114), it is suggested that the approach laiddown by the Court of Appeal in that case is inconsistent with that of the SC in Mitchell. Given thatMit......