Weatherley, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 31 July 2024, the Applicant was convicted at the trial court of manslaughter, one count of kidnapping, and one count of false imprisonment, and was acquitted of murder and two further counts of kidnapping and false imprisonment. [Para 26] On 5 September 2024, when he was 20, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 years' detention in a young offenders' institute, to run consecutively to an existing minimum term of 14 years and 310 days for a previous conspiracy to murder conviction. [Para 27] He then sought to renew his application for leave to appeal against conviction after leave had been refused by the single judge. [Para 28]

The case concerned the kidnapping and killing of the Deceased and the detention of the Partner, who were attacked after returning home, taken to premises in The City, and later the Deceased's body was moved and dumped in woodland in The State. [Para 29][Para 30] The Crown case was that the kidnapping plan had been in operation since at least 23 September 2022, but there was no evidence that the Applicant was involved in that advance planning and his alleged involvement began only on the day of the kidnapping. [Para 32][Para 33]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge should have upheld the submission of no case to answer because the identification evidence said to show Subject 2 was too poor to be left to the jury. [Para 28][Para 38][Para 42]
2. Whether the convictions were unsafe because the CCTV identification evidence, with or without the supporting circumstantial evidence, was insufficient to go to the jury. [Para 38][Para 44][Para 54]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant argued that the identification evidence was woefully inadequate because the CCTV image was blurred, lasted only a little over a second, and did not allow any meaningful comparison with images known to be of the Applicant. [Para 43]
• He also submitted that DC Gunn's inspection of the video was not properly documented. [Para 44]
• He contended that the other supporting factors were not strong enough, either individually or cumulatively, to justify leaving the identification evidence to the jury, and that the convictions were unsafe. [Para 44]
• He submitted that the judge should have accepted the no case to answer submission in whole, or at least on all counts except the kidnapping of the Deceased. [Para 42]

Prosecution's Case

• The prosecution case was that Subject 2 was the Applicant and that he acted together with others in the kidnapping of the Deceased and the Partner. [Para 37]
• To prove identification, the prosecution relied on DC Gunn's CCTV identification process, the Applicant's association with a person whose phone was used to contact co-defendants, the neighbour's evidence, the Applicant's proximity to the relevant address, and the absence of a phone attributable to the Applicant around the relevant time. [Para 37][Para 34]
• The prosecution also relied on the trial judge's earlier rejection of the attempt to exclude the identification evidence. [Para 37]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the CCTV image was described as "very poor," but held that it was still sufficiently clear for the jury to decide whether it could be compared with other images of the Applicant and with their own observations of him. [Para 45][Para 46][Para 48] The judges found that the footage was not devoid of discernible features: build, skin tone, and hairstyle could be seen, and there were no identified features of Subject 2 that were definitively inconsistent with the Applicant. [Para 48]

The Court also held that the jury had been given an appropriate warning that if the footage was not good enough, they must ignore DC Gunn's evidence and make no comparison of their own. [Para 48] The criticisms of DC Gunn's approach had been explored in cross-examination and were the subject of careful legal directions, so they did not prevent the evidence from being left to the jury. [Para 49]

Most importantly, the CCTV footage did not stand alone. The Court agreed that there were numerous other strands of evidence, and that the cumulative effect of all the material made it appropriate for the identification issue to be decided by the jury. [Para 39][Para 40][Para 48][Para 54]

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. [Para 54] The Applicant's convictions therefore remained undisturbed, and the Court said the challenge was unarguable on the material before it. [Para 54] The decision was confined to the facts and evidence in this case and did not announce any new precedent. [Para 48][Para 54]