Guidance was given on the circumstances for showing video evidence to a jury a second time after they had once retired.
Held: It should be exceptional only, because of the risk of it attracting greater weight than other evidence. It remains a matter for the Judge’s discretion.
The Lord Chief Justice set out the procedure to be followed if a judge permits a video of a witness’s evidence to be replayed:
i) The replay should be in court with all parties present;
ii) The jury should be warned to guard against giving the evidence disproportionate weight;
iii) The Judge should remind the jury of cross-examination of the witness, whether or not asked to do so.
Citations:
Times 19-Oct-1994, Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Independent 18-Oct-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 222, [1995] 1 WLR 178
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Imran, Hussain CACD 9-Jun-1997
The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after . .
Cited – S and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2012
Four defendants appealed against convictions for child sex abuse. The convictions had taken place at a time when current guidance to examining physicians did not apply. In each case the defendants consented to new evidence from the prosecution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87599