Photo-evidence challenge failed after defence abandoned tender

Sedikie Franklin was refused renewed permission to appeal on 10 July after challenging jury directions, a refused scene visit and the treatment of photographs. His convictions and concurrent sentences remained in place.

The photograph complaint turned first on what happened at trial. After the judge required an evidential foundation, defence counsel abandoned the proposed tender. The Court of Appeal found that the photographs had not actually been excluded by a ruling preventing their admission.

The judges nevertheless examined the legal issue. They questioned treating a scene photograph automatically as computer-generated documentary evidence merely because a camera might be digital. Relevance and authentication still mattered, and the scene had materially changed between the incident and the later photographs.

The court also upheld the refusal of a jury visit and found that the directions adequately required intentional participation rather than mere presence. On the evidence and arguments actually advanced, no miscarriage of justice was shown. The decision does not remove the need to establish a proper foundation for photographic evidence.

The official listing spells the first name “Sedekie”; the judgment cover spells it “Sedikie”, used here. The photography discussion includes alternative reasoning after the court found the tender had been abandoned. Later treatment not checked.