The court considered the application of the 2003 Act to communications made to, or by, the defendant, and in particular text messages sent by mobile telephone.
Held: The four appeals against conviction were dismissed. Singh established that the common law rules on hearsay had been abolished by the 2003 Act. The court set out its understanding of the position now: ‘ Sometimes the contents of a communication may be admissible by this route even though hearsay. But: i) admission under section 114(1)(d) is not routine, nor a matter of mere form; it requires careful thought, having due regard to (especially) reliability and the opportunity to test it . . ii) there are different rules applicable to hearsay; see for example section 121 where there is multiple hearsay, the power contained in section 125 to stop a case dependent on hearsay if the evidence is so unconvincing that a conviction would be unsafe and the general discretion under s 126 to refuse to admit a statement on grounds of undue waste of time; iii) if the maker(s) of the communication is or are unknown, that will be very relevant to whether their hearsay evidence ought to be admitted; we have not heard full argument upon this point and do not decide it; however, we draw attention to the fact that no anonymous witness order under ss 86-89 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 can be made in a case of fear in relation to evidence which is hearsay, because of the existence of s 116(1)(c) of the 2003 Act which requires the fearful witness whose hearsay is adduced to be identified . . whilst there may be some forms of anonymous hearsay which are nevertheless admissible, such as business records or the statement of an unidentified agent of the defendant, the hearsay testimony of an anonymous witness may well fail the interests of justice test of admissibility. . ‘
Hughes LJ VP, Treacy, Edwards-Stuart JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 1143, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 17
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114 118
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Kearley HL 3-Jun-1992
Telephone calls which were made to the defendant’s phone asking for drugs, but made after the arrest of the defendant for supplying drugs were inadmissible as hearsay. They were adduced to prove, by implication, the fact that he, as an occupier of . .
Cited – Regina v Singh CACD 23-Feb-2006
The evidence against the defendant was that he was the holder and user of mobile telephone lines used in a kidnapping. The court used evidence of the numbers stored in other mobile phones contacted by him to show that he was part of a conspiracy. It . .
Cited – Regina v Z CACD 23-Jan-2009
The defendant appealed against convictions for rape and indecent assault under the 1956 Act. The allegations dated from 1985 to 1989 when the complainant had been between 9 and 13. The prosecution brought in a doctor who said that in 1993 D . .
Cited – Y, Regina v CACD 25-Jan-2008
The Crown appealed against a ruling that the court would not admit a written statement of a defendant from a related trial implicating the defendant.
Held: A Court of Appeal will only interfere with a ruling under the Act if the ruling falls . .
Cited – Regina v Mayers, Glasgow and others CACD 12-Dec-2008
The court considered the application of the rules in the 2008 Act on witness anonymity orders.
Held: There is no basis at common law or under the 2003 Act or the 2008 Act upon which anonymous hearsay evidence can be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Andrews HL 1987
Res Gestae no means of avoiding witness
The court should deprecate any attempt to use the res gestae doctrine as a device to avoid calling a witness if he or she were available. The court laid down six tests for the admission of evidence under the res gestae rule.
Lord Ackner said: . .
Cited – Regina v Elliott CACD 27-Jul-2010
It had been relevant for the Crown to prove that the defendant was an adherent to a gang. It sought to rely (inter alia) on some letters sent to him in prison which contained references to membership of the gang and symbols signifying the same.
Cited – Regina v MK CACD 4-Dec-2007
The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of the words used in a phone call between someone wanting drugs and the defendant, who was accused (amongst other things) of being concerned in making an offer to supply a controlled drug of class, ie . .
Cited – Regina v Chrysostomou CACD 24-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for harassment. He was said to have used an imitation firearm to put a person in fear of violence. The prosecution had used texts received to the defendant’s mobile phone as ‘bad character’ evidence. The . .
Cited – Regina v Mayers, Glasgow and others CACD 12-Dec-2008
The court considered the application of the rules in the 2008 Act on witness anonymity orders.
Held: There is no basis at common law or under the 2003 Act or the 2008 Act upon which anonymous hearsay evidence can be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Fox CACD 28-Apr-2010
The contents of an anonymous 999 call were inadmissible as evidence that the facts reported were true. . .
Cited – Regina v Bains CACD 20-Apr-2010
The defendant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his conviction of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.439659