Regina v Hennessy

The appellant, Hennessy, was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, and two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. He appealed against his convictions and sentences to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary issues were whether the application for separate trials should have been granted, the admissibility of similar fact evidence and photographic evidence, and the appropriateness of the directions and special caution given to the jury. The court was also required to consider whether the photograph taken at the scene of the crime fell within the ambit of sections 115 and 116 of the Evidence Act 1995, and whether the identification evidence and the evidence of possession of the handgun were properly admitted.

The court held that the application for separate trials was not warranted as the evidence was not of such a prejudicial nature as to make a fair trial impossible. The court found that the similar fact evidence was admissible to show a common course of conduct, and the photographic evidence was relevant to the identification of the appellant. The court considered the directions and special caution given to the jury to be appropriate, and found that the photograph taken at the scene of the crime did not fall within the ambit of sections 115 and 116 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court also found that the identification evidence and the evidence of possession of the handgun were properly admitted. The court considered the appellant's appeal against sentence and found that the sentences imposed were appropriate, taking into account the need for retribution, deterrence and protection of society.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.