R v Cooper
The Court of Appeal may quash a conviction where it has a lurking doubt about its safety, even if there was no error at the trial.
Facts
Mr Cooper was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The main issue was identification. The victim identified Mr Cooper, who had an alibi, but there was evidence that another man, who resembled Mr Cooper and had a criminal record, had boasted of committing the assault. The judge's summing up was fair and there was no error of law.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Widgery LJ said that the court must ask itself whether there is some lurking doubt in its mind which makes it wonder whether an injustice has been done, a reaction which may not be based strictly on the evidence as such but which can be produced by the general feel of the case as the court experiences it. Although the court rarely quashes convictions on this basis, the lurking doubt test remains available in exceptional cases.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
