R v Grant Harding
[2023] EWCA Crim 937
R v Alistair Dickson
25 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1002
Court of Appeal
Alistair was convicted of murder. His appeal failed because the evidence against him, including his shoes possibly matching injuries and his past violence, was strong enough, even though some evidence was not perfectly clear.
Key Facts
- •On May 28, 2021, Daniel Humble was attacked and killed by a group of seven young men in Cramlington.
- •Alistair Dickson was one of the seven charged with murder.
- •Dickson was convicted of murder, while the others were convicted of manslaughter.
- •The key evidence against Dickson was footwear impressions potentially linking his trainers to injuries on the victim.
- •A forensic scientist, Mr. Forth, testified that Dickson's trainers could not be excluded as the source of the injuries, while others could be.
- •Dickson appealed his conviction, arguing the footwear evidence lacked probative value and that new expert evidence should be admitted.
- •Additional bad character evidence was admitted showing Dickson's propensity for violence.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of bad character evidence
Section 101(1)(d) of the 2003 Act
Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Standard for admissibility of expert evidence
R v T [2011] 1 Cr.App.R 9 at [109]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The footwear evidence, while not conclusive, gained probative value from the exclusion of other defendants' shoes. The judge's summation accurately reflected the evidence. The new expert evidence was not considered 'fresh' and did not alter the core factual position.
Application to extend time to appeal bad character evidence refused
The bad character evidence was probative and the delay in applying for its admission was not prejudicial. The case against Dickson was strong even without this evidence.