R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Samuel Channell
13 September 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1183
Court of Appeal
Someone was convicted of robbery based on CCTV. He wanted a new trial to use expert evidence to challenge the identification, but the judge said no. A higher court agreed with the judge because the CCTV was good enough and the new evidence wasn't very good, so the guilty verdict stands.
Key Facts
- •Samuel Channell convicted of robbery on 8 June 2022.
- •Conviction based on CCTV identification evidence.
- •Channell sought to adduce expert facial mapping evidence and fresh evidence (hand photos from CCTV) to challenge identification.
- •Trial judge refused adjournment to obtain expert evidence.
- •Robbery occurred on 20 December 2021 at a One Stop shop in Southampton.
- •Two shop assistants identified Channell as one of the robbers.
- •Police officers also identified Channell from CCTV footage.
- •No other evidence directly linked Channell to the robbery.
- •Channell's defense was that he was not present at the robbery and that he was misidentified.
- •Defense counsel failed to produce an expert report before or during the trial.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of evidence
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Judge's discretion to adjourn trial
Inherent powers of the court
Standard of review for trial judge's decisions
Case law on judicial discretion
Judicial directions to jury on identification evidence
Case law on jury directions
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
The judge's refusal to adjourn was within his discretion. The fresh evidence was inadmissible. The identification evidence was properly presented to the jury, and their verdict was not unsafe.