"The test in Galbraith is well established and I don't repeat it now. Suffice to say: a submission should be allowed where there is no evidence upon which, if the evidence adduced were accepted, a reasonable jury properly directed could convict. As far as the first limb is concerned which attaches to the third defendant, there is no evidence at all [on] which a jury could convict. And as far as the generality of the rest of the submissions, the second limb of Galbraith bites and that is: where there is evidence of a tenuous character, either due to inherent weaknesses, inconsistencies or vagueness and if the Crown's evidence taken at its highest no jury properly could convict [on it], it is the court's duty to stop the case at that stage. However, where evidence depends on the view taken of the witnesses' reliability or matters generally within the province of the jury where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence which a reasonable jury could properly come to the conclusion that a defendant is guilty, the matters should be left to the jury. And the decision is one of judicial discretion and I remind myself of the assessment of the evidence – [which] require[s] an assessment of the whole of the evidence as set out in R v Shippey and not to pick out the plums from the duff. As far as Turnbull is concerned, again more specifically the court's attention has quite properly been brought to paragraph 14 of Archbold where: withdrawing a case from the jury is necessary where the quality of the identifying evidence is poor and unsupported, the court should withdraw the case from the jury because of the experience of injustice in these cases."
"In the submission of a number of these defendants the evidence can be poor, even if it's given by a number of witnesses, and where the evidence sufficient to justify the case being left to the jury or there's no other evidence to support it, the judge is entitled to direct the jury that the evidence of one witness can support another. But more pertinently as far as the submissions are concerned, even where there are two honest witnesses the court must guard against leaving poor quality or unsupported identification evidence to a jury and should be alive, as I've already said, to the caution that is required in identification cases. I say that because each of the parties have acknowledged that although there is an element of recognition and, indeed, the background which has been explored to a certain extent by some of the defendants, the court should as a first approach [look at] the nature of the evidence that has been presented to see whether it is such that it ought properly to be withdrawn from the jury."
"The defence are right to draw to my attention the fact that this is a night-time incident or incidents; that they are dynamic incidents; that they involve a group attack and that they are, therefore, limited as far as the opportunity for identification is concerned. The question for the court is whether the evidence is such that this court should now step in and stop the matter going any further. As far as the first [Mr Godwin] is concerned the submissions made fully on his behalf are submissions properly made, but in my judgment. they are submissions for a jury. What they go to is the credibility of the witnesses, the opportunity of them to properly identify him as being involved in either or both of the incidents in circumstances where his name is given at a very early stage. The inconsistencies pointed to by [counsel] in her submissions are submissions that are made and I understand why they are made, but to my mind the evidence as a whole against Mr Godwin is such that in respect of both Count 1 and Count 2 with the alternative Count 3 are matters for the jury. The issues that are raised in the arguments and the matters set out and taking into account, as I have done, an assessment of the evidence as a whole and, in particular, the concerns raised about the circumstances in which the identification or the recognition, as it might be, are said to be made in my judgment are classically matters for the jury and, no doubt, they will be deployed fully as far as the jury is concerned. "
"2. The judge was right to reject the submission of no case to answer based on alleged weaknesses in the identification evidence:- i) The victim recognised the applicant as the driver of a BMW vehicle whose number plate he was able to recall; the applicant had a distinctive eye injury caused by a firework accident although the victim discovered his name later and informed the police. ii) The circumstances of the observation were not prolonged but not fleeting and the lighting was reasonable as demonstrated by a video of the attack filmed by [some] of the perpetrators and posted on social media and shown to the jury. iii) It transpired on investigation that there was a link between the applicant and the BMW and his fingerprint was found on the rearview mirror. iv) The applicant was also identified by the victim of the ct 2 wounding with intent that was a separate but linked incident on the same night. v) The defence points about the weaknesses and reliability of the identification were all matters for the jury to consider in the light of proper directions by the judge of which no complainant is or could be made. Credibility of the victim’s identification is even more a question for the jury in the light of the evidence as a whole. 3. The judge’s directions on the potential relevance of missing information from the alibi notice served as part of the defence statement were both appropriate and fair in all the circumstances and the defence points were ones that could be raised with the jury."
"I then had the car keys in my possession, literally in my hand. There is only one car key to the particular car so there would have been no way anyone else could have driven the car."