R v Darren Dawson
[2023] EWCA Crim 1408
Aaron Maddison v R
12 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 816
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of robbery based on witnesses who said they recognized him. He argued the witnesses were wrong, but the court said there was enough other evidence—like him being seen with the other robber earlier—to let the jury decide. The appeal was rejected because the court decided that there was enough evidence to support the conviction.
Key Facts
- •Aaron Maddison was convicted of robbery at Durham Crown Court.
- •The robbery involved two masked men at a fish and chip shop.
- •Maddison's conviction relied heavily on eyewitness identification.
- •The identification evidence was contested due to several weaknesses.
- •Maddison argued there was no case to answer due to weak identification evidence.
Legal Principles
Test for a submission of no case to answer (Galbraith): If the prosecution evidence, at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, the judge must stop the case. If the strength or weakness depends on witness reliability, etc., and on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly convict, the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.
R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 160
Guidelines for evaluating identification evidence (Turnbull): Considers factors like lighting, duration of observation, proximity, etc.
R v Turnbull [1997] QB 224
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to justify the case going to the jury. While acknowledging weaknesses in the identification evidence, the court considered the totality of the evidence, including circumstantial factors, strong enough to support a conviction. The judge correctly applied the legal tests in Galbraith and Turnbull.