The appellants challenged their conviction for murder and sentences. The victim was the young second wife of the first defendant. It was said that she had been unfaithful, and having been lured to India, had been murdered there. She had disappeared, but no body had been found. Relatives then came forward to give evidence of a conspiracy to murder. A claim was made that the prosecution for murder was an abuse of process, because there had been an inequality of arms, with legal aid being refused for substantive investigations in India, though the prosecution had made such investigations.
Held: There had been no abuse of process. The substantial disputes related to events in England. Complaint had been made as to the use made of previous inconsistent statements. The court now found that the judge had failed properly to apply the 2003 Act, which should now be used to provide a comprehensive code on the use of hearsay evidence. However this did not affect the safety of the convictions.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Mr Justice Mackay and Mr Justice Stadlen
[2009] EWCA Crim 789, Times 14-Jul-2009, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 14, [2009] Crim LR 726, [2009] 1 WLR 2430
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Momodou and Limani CACD 2-Feb-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions and sentence for violent disorder and assault during an uprising at Yarl’s Wood Detention centre. It was said that witnesses had been coached, other defence witnesses had been returned to their . .
Cited – Nominal Defendant v Clements 1961
(Australia) Dixon CJ said of the rules regarding the significance of previous inconsistent statements: ‘in as much as the rule forms a definite exception to the general principle excluding statements made out of court and admits a possibly . .
Cited – Regina v Oyesiku CACD 1971
The court considered the admissibility of evidence of consistent statements in order to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. There may be a residual discretion with the judge to permit re-examination to show consistency when there is . .
Cited – Subramaniam v Director of Public Prosecutions PC 1956
(Malaysia) The defendant sought to advance a defence of duress under a section of the Penal Code of the Federated Malay States which provided that, with certain exceptions, ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it . .
Cited – T, Regina v CACD 13-Feb-2008
Section 120 does not go as to admissibility
David Clarke J explained the effect of the section: ‘section 120(2) is not itself a provision governing admissibility . . what the sub-section does is to regulate the use to which such evidence, once admitted, may be put. It is then admissible as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.341837