R v Khayam Khurshid
[2023] EWCA Crim 1687
Nardis Maynard v The King (St Christopher and Nevis)
1 August 2024
[2024] UKPC 24
Privy Council
A man was convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony. The appeal court initially upheld the conviction, but the Privy Council overturned it because the judge didn't properly explain the weaknesses in the eyewitness accounts and failed to give the jury important information about the defendant's character. This means there will likely be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Nardis Maynard convicted of murder in 2004 based solely on identification evidence.
- •Co-defendant acquitted.
- •Maynard's first appeal against conviction was withdrawn, later declared a nullity.
- •Second appeal challenged the admissibility of fresh evidence, summing-up deficiencies, lack of good character direction, and application of the proviso.
- •Key identification witnesses: Kimesha Powell, Marilyn Lowrie, Jason Hamilton, and PC Mark Handley.
- •Inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the number of people present at the scene.
- •No forensic evidence linked Maynard to the crime.
- •Maynard's alibi witnesses (sister and brother) were not called at trial.
- •Trial judge failed to give a good character direction.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of fresh evidence
Section 49 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act 2009
Directions on identification evidence
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224; Mills v The Queen [1995] 1 WLR 511; Reid (Junior) v The Queen [1990] 1 AC 363; Omar Grieves v The Queen [2011] UKPC 39; Shand v The Queen [1996] 1 WLR 67; Aurelio Pop v The Queen [2003] WL 21161224
Good character direction
R v Williams (James) [2011] EWCA Crim 1739
Application of the proviso in section 44(1) of the Supreme Court Act
Jevone Demming v The Queen (unreported) 14 January 2020; Stafford v The State [1999] 1WLR 2026; Cassell v The Queen [2016] UKPC 19; [2017] 1 WLR 2738
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction allowed.
The cumulative effect of the trial judge's failures to adequately direct the jury on identification evidence and the lack of a good character direction resulted in an unsafe conviction. The Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso.
Fresh evidence inadmissible.
While credible, the fresh evidence lacked cogency and would not have affected the safety of the conviction given the other evidence.