BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Doyle, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 2198 (24 July 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/2198.html Cite as: [2018] EWCA Crim 2198 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE CARR DBE
THE RECORDER OF PRESTON
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BROWN
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
SHAUN PATRICK DOYLE |
____________________
Epiq Europe Ltd 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M WALSH appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE SIMON:
Lad, fucking ring me asap, these both been fucking opened, been taped back up. You're a fucking cheeky twat lad and I already paid for them. You hard faced twat lad. The first one is 55 down and he just doing the next one now, that gonna do down as well. I fucking knew it, wit yu giving people buds out of my weed lad, fucking wanker, and they been both opened, you fucking cheeky twat you lad.
This propensity is relevant to the fingerprint appearing on the heroin packaging and represents important explanatory evidence when considering his denial in interview. A jury would be wholly misled ... if a single fingerprint appeared in a vacuum without knowledge of his wider involvement in the drug trade. Furthermore, [the prosecution] says the text messages ... are highly probative, because they relate to packaging of wholesale packages of controlled drugs, and that is particularly relevant here...
... you decide this case only on the evidence which is being placed before you, in other words the admissions, the evidence of the fingerprint expert and the defendant. There will be no more evidence. Do not speculate about what evidence there might have been, or allow yourself to be drawn into speculation. After all, the defendant knows perfectly well, he says, who sent the text messages because he was the man, he calls him his mate, who he was in the drugs business with and they were very close. Perhaps not surprisingly he has not come to court to give evidence but let us not worry about it, about witnesses there might have been, just deal with the evidence you have got, okay.
"And the prosecution say, you were receiving a message about taped, that obviously a package had been taped and you received that message, and the defendant agreed he had but he said it was all nonsense."