Lurking doubtLurking doubt, also known as the Cooper test, is a legal test allowing an appeal court in England and Wales to overturn a conviction on the basis that it disagrees with the jury's verdict. It was introduced in R v Cooper[1] by Judge Widgery. In that case, the appeal was based on mistaken identity rather than any irregularity, as all the issues were before a properly-instructed jury. In overturning the conviction in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, the judge wrote:
Appeals on this principle are rarely successful[2] and some regard it as problematic.[3] It has been criticised as allowing the Court of Appeal to overturn juries: a later appeal court judgement says "it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts,"[4] while others argue that a more formal method for overturning juries' mistakes needs to be found.[5] The test was reaffirmed in R v B:[6] "There can be no doubt that the lurking doubt notion ... continues to be a tool available to this court" and it can set aside convictions in the interests of justice.[7] The phrase also occurs in commentary on derived legal systems, such as New Zealand[8] and Jersey.[9] References
|