Regina v Hammond: 1986

Boreham J said: ‘There is clear authority for a proposition, which is contrary to the decision of the learned judge in this case, that where a defendant in the course of interview, whether by oral reply or by statement in writing, makes excuses for his conduct or assertions in his own favour in a mixed statement, those excuses or assertions form part of the evidence in the case. As is pointed out in Duncan, it may be evidence that in the circumstances will not carry a great deal of weight, but at least it is evidence of that which is asserted. The learned judge in this case, as I have indicated, decided to the contrary. We have no doubt that had the decision in Duncan been brought to the judge’s attention his ruling would have been different.’

Judges:

Boreham J

Citations:

(1986) Cr App R 65

Cited by:

CitedSilverman, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-1987
The defendant appealed against his conviction for offences of for dishonesty. He was said ti have grossly overcharged two spinster sisters for work on their home. He said that the judge had failed properly to put his defence before the jury.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.544348