R v Hanratty
DNA evidence obtained decades later confirmed the guilt of a man hanged in 1962, and the Court of Appeal can consider fresh evidence that supports a conviction.
Facts
James Hanratty was convicted of the murder of Michael Gregsten and the rape and attempted murder of Valerie Storie in a lay-by on the A6 in 1961, in what became known as the A6 murder. He was hanged in 1962. His family campaigned for many years to clear his name, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal in 1999, raising concerns about the identification evidence and non disclosure. Before the hearing, DNA tests were carried out on material from the victim's clothing and from a handkerchief found with the murder weapon, and on Hanratty's exhumed remains.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The DNA evidence showed that Hanratty's DNA was present on the victim's underwear and on the handkerchief, and that there was no trace of DNA from any other man, which made the case against him overwhelming. The court held that it could consider fresh evidence that supported the safety of a conviction, as well as evidence that undermined it. Lord Woolf CJ said that the DNA evidence, on its own, was certain proof of guilt, and that any procedural irregularities at the trial did not make the conviction unsafe.
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 Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- 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
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.
