![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
|
THE FUTURE OF BAILII DEPENDS ON USERS LIKE YOU
If you want to be able to use BAILII in the future, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law.
Your donation, no matter the size, will help BAILII maintain the legal databases that you and many other users rely on. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
| ||||||||||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Head, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1294 (10 August 2022) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2022/1294.html Cite as: [2022] EWCA Crim 1294 |
||||||||||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
2022] EWCA Crim 1294 |
||
2022/01872/B5 |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
2022 |
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE O'FARRELL DBE
MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE
____________________
| R E G I N A |
||
| - v - |
||
GARETH HEAD |
____________________
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE WARBY:
2022,
following a trial in the Crown Court at Basildon, the applicant Gareth
Head
(aged 45) was convicted by a jury of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order and ordered to pay the victim surcharge and £1,750 towards the prosecution costs.
2022.
The application followed on 15th June. It is said that in all the circumstances this was prompt and that it would be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. We agree, and we grant the necessary extensions.
23. Mr Cohen's analysis is beguiling, but we have not been persuaded.
"The primary question is for the court itself and is not what effect the fresh evidence would have had on the mind of the jury."
That said, when applying this test, the court will consider whether the fresh evidence might have reasonably led the jury to a different verdict: see R v Nealon [2014] EWCA Crim 574.
NOTE: On 11 August
2022 the Crown indicated that it did not seek a retrial.