![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Maddison v Rex [2024] EWCA Crim 816 (12 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/816.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Crim 816 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT NEWCASTLE
His Honour Judge Bindloss
11SS0217520
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE BRYAN
and
MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN
____________________
AARON MADDISON |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
REX |
Respondent |
____________________
Hearing dates : 12 July 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN :
Introduction
The facts
The Applicant's case on identification
(i) the robber had his face covered, so this is not a facial recognition case;
(ii) Mr Bharti said that the man who robbed him had brown eyes, whereas the Applicant has blue eyes;
(iii) Miss Brown said in her evidence that she recognised the fact it was the Applicant by the similar clothing but on closer cross-examination, she accepted that the Applicant, earlier in the evening, had been wearing a white t-shirt, whereas the man on the CCTV can clearly be shown in a jacket;
(iv) There were contradictions within the evidence about clothing including whether the top was black, navy or dark.
(v) Ms Brown says that she recognised the Applicant because of his funny walk or dopey walk but the CCTV shows that there were not many steps taken during the robbery to allow such an assessment to be made.
"(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness' reliability, or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury."
The prosecution case
(1) CCTV footage of the incident.
(2) Evidence from Vikram Bharti and Tyrin Brown in relation to the events leading up to the robbery, the robbery and the identification of the Applicant.
(3) Evidence, which was read, from Angela Dodsworth in relation to the description of the Applicant's appearance, the events leading up to the robbery and the robbery.
(4) Identification evidence relating to the Applicant.
The Judge's ruling on submission of no case to answer
(1) the two identifying witnesses Mr Bharti and Ms Brown were close to the robber with the bar said to be the defendant;
(2) the light was relatively good in the shop;
(3) the witnesses had the Applicant in view for up to a minute and their view was not impeded;
(4) they were in close proximity to him;
(5) words were exchanged;
(6) they had seen the Applicant before the time of the robbery namely on that very day on two or three occasions between 5:00pm and 8:00pm.
The single judge
(a) the robber with the bar was wearing the same Armani top as the Defendant was during the evening, albeit inside out;
(b) the Defendant was last seen in the vicinity of the chip shop at around 9:30pm, shortly before the robbery takes place;
(c) the robber with the bar was the same height as the Defendant;
(d) the robber with the bar was the same build as the Defendant.
Submissions of the Applicant in response to the observations of the single judge
Discussion
Disposal