R v Donald Pendleton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Crim 115 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 1999/00783/S1 |
| Date | 22 January 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Crim 115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes)
Mr Justice Mitchell and
Mr Justice Keith
No. 1999/00783/S1
Non-Counsel Application
Tuesday 22 January 2002
: On 3 July 1986, the applicant was convicted of murder. His renewed application was dismissed on 8 June 1987. It was referred back to this court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. On 22 June 2000, the full court dismissed his appeal. On 13 December 2001, the House of Lords allowed the appeal. The consequence is that the conviction order has to be quashed. The court therefore makes the judgment of the House of Lords an order of the Court of Appeal in accordance with the draft order enclosed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Malook (Sadakat)
...57 In appeals against conviction, the principles that the court applies to fresh evidence received under s.23 are well settled; the test in Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66; [2002] 1 Cr App R 34 is considered and, if it is satisfied, the conviction is quashed and a re-trial ordered. 58 In sentence......
- R v Donald Pendleton
-
R v Henderson and Others
...not be in any better position than an appellant who had called evidence at trial. 4 The important observation of Lord Bingham CJ in R v Pendleton [2002] 1 Cr App R 441 [17] that trial by jury does not mean trial by jury in the first instance and trial by judges in the Court of Appeal in the......
-
R v Horncastle and another
...he made. Although there is now fresh evidence before us in relation to the attack on Mr Bashir, we do not consider, applying the test in Pendleton that it might have made a difference to the way in which the jury decided the case. First there was sufficient evidence of propensity, second, t......