The defendant had been tried for indecent assaults. The complainant having died before the trial, the judge had ruled that her written statements were admissible. The defendant said he had not had a fair trial.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s trial had to be fair. The opportunity to cross-examine a witness was important but not determinative. Though there was a strong public interest that a prosecution should proceed, that public interest could not be allowed to override the fair trial requirement. The opportunity to cross-examine was one specific aspect of a fair trial. Here the defendant had been able to test that statement admitted for consistency with statements from other witnesses and through expert evidence.
Jack J
[2005] EWCA Crim 2697, Times 15-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 WLR
Bailii
Sexual Offences Act 1956 14(1), Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 24 25 26 27 28
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Cited – Kostovski v The Netherlands ECHR 20-Nov-1989
No Anonymity for Witnessses in Criminal Trial
K was convicted of armed robbery on the basis of statements of anonymous witnesses. He was unable to question those witnesses at any stage. Being unaware of the identity of the witnesses deprived K of the very particulars which would have enabled . .
Cited – Regina v McCoy CACD 10-Dec-1999
The judge should direct the jury fully about the handicap which the inability to cross-examine the witness placed upon the defence, and possible lines of cross-examination which the appellants had lost: ‘If a statement of a critical witness is to be . .
Cited – Luca v Italy ECHR 27-Feb-2001
The accused had been convicted. After exercising his right to silence, there were read to the court accounts of statements made by co-accused but without an opportunity for him to cross examine the witnesses.
Held: Saunders had established the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Grant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
At Court of Appeal – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
Each complainant said that in allowing hearsay evidence to be used against them at their trials, their article 6 human rights had been infringed. In the first case the complainant had died before trial but her statement was admitted.
Held: In . .
At CACD – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2008
Each claimant complained of the admission at their trials of hearsay evidence. . .
At CACD – Al-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jan-2009
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06).
The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.234698
