Ibrahim, Regina v: CACD 15 Jan 2014

Appeal against conviction on the ground that the trial judge wrongly excluded certain evidence. The appellant has in the past been diagnosed as suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’). The issue in this appeal is whether the judge should have admitted expert evidence concerning the effects of that condition.

Jackson LJ, Simon J, Sir Colin MacKay
[2014] EWCA Crim 121
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522312

Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands): Admn 13 Feb 2014

The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, prima facie, admissible if ‘relevant’ to a matter in issue in the proceedings. Under section 76 for the reliability of a confession to be challenged all that is required is a ‘representation’ to the Court that the confession meets the conditions in section 76(2)(b). The representation need not demonstrate that the confession ‘was’ unreliable; all that need be advanced is that the confession ‘may have been’ unreliable. Section 76 is concerned to protect against a risk of unreliability. The test for the Court is not whether the confession was reliable per se. The Court is concerned not with the intrinsic quality of the confession as evidence but with the manner in which it came into being and as to the risk of it being unreliable. This is evident from section 76(2) which states that a confession may be excluded ‘notwithstanding that it may be true’. The focus of the analysis is the position that pertained at the time of the impugned confession; cf ‘in the circumstances existing at the time’ in section 76. The Court therefore cannot examine the confession in the light of other evidence which might arise in the course of the trial insofar as that evidence does not bear upon the conditions prevailing at the time. The words in section 76(2)(b) ‘anything said or done’ include acts and omissions i.e. failures to do something; the distinction between acts and omissions will in any event frequently be artificial. Culpability on the part of the police is not a sine qua non to exclusion of a confession. The assessment under section 76 PACE will take into account whether there has been adherence to the Codes to PACE. A failure to adhere to a requirement in PACE is not mere ‘rigmarole’. Not every breach of PACE or the Code will lead to the exclusion of the evidence in consequence thereof. If there has been a breach the Court will consider whether it was a material breach i.e. whether had the breach not occurred it would have made a difference. the position under section 78 PACE 1984 which concerns fairness will not normally differ from that based upon the application to the same facts of section 76 PACE, however section 78 could in principle exert a broader protective sweep than section 76 and therefore it acts as an override protection for a detainee.
As to the suggestion that she had not been allowed access to a solicitor: ‘ the Appellant voluntarily chose to be interviewed without receiving advice and without the assistance of a solicitor during her interview. But critically, she was given clear and repeated offers of advice both in the form of a face to face consultation and in the form of access to telephone advice.’ The appeal on that ground failed.

Green J
[2014] EWHC 283 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78
Citing:
CitedScott v The Queen PC 1989
The Board was asked whether sworn depositions of two deceased witnesses should have been admitted.
Held: A warning should be given when admitting identification involving communications between spouses. A conviction based on uncorroborated . .
CitedRegina v Gill CACD 2004
Police officers had continued the interview of a suspect despite it becoming clear that he suffered mental incapacity. The trial judge having heard an application to have the interview excluded at an early point and only gave his reasons much later, . .
CitedCharles v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 26-Nov-2009
The police were admitted to have failed to comply with Code of Practice A. The defendant appealed against the conviction on his admission.
Held: A failure to adhere to a requirement in PACE is not mere ‘rigmarole’: ‘These provisions are not a . .
CitedRegina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
CitedRegina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R 1988
R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined. . .
CitedRegina v Samuel CA 1988
The defendant had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. He asked for a solicitor, but one was refused under section 58 of the 1984 Act. He appealed against his conviction saying that he should have been allowed access to a solicitor.
Criminal Evidence

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521235

Young v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 15 Nov 2013

The Court refused to admit evidence of ‘case linkage analysis’ because it was the subject of only relatively recent academic research and a methodology which was not yet sufficiently developed that it could be treated as reliable.

Lord Menzies
[2013] ScotHC HCJAC – 145, [2013] HCJAC 145, 2013 GWD 39-748, 2014 SLT 21, 2014 SCCR 78, 2014 SCL 98
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedKennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519307

Haq, Regina v: CACD 22 Oct 2014

Whether a witness statement, apparently signed by the appellant, which actually had the effect of undermining his alibi should have been excluded pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, by reason of the manner by which it was obtained and/or its adverse effect upon the fairness of the proceedings. If so, is the conviction unsafe?

[2014] EWCA Crim 2216
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.539451

Kempster, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2008

The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that evidence of an ear-print expert had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The court rejected an argument based on Coutts. Ear-print evidence can be admitted provided the experts were appropriately experienced and the sample was sufficient. In this case the sample used was insufficient.

Lord Justice Latham, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett
[2008] EWCA Crim 975, Times 16-May-2008
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
CitedRegina v Dallagher CACD 25-Jul-2002
The prosecution sought to bring into evidence an ear print. The defendant appealed.
Held: The science of identifying ear prints remained under development, but there was nothing to stop it being admitted where appropriately cautious directions . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.267554

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn): HL 15 Dec 2000

A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence at trial. The defendant objected, and claimed that it had been gained and used in breach of the section. The original sample itself was not relied upon at trial. The issue was whether the unlawful retention so tainted the investigation process, that the later sample should not have been admitted. The two parts of the section were strikingly different. After an acquittal the sample should have been destroyed. Part b merely prohibited the use in an investigation, but that did not go on in turn to make inadmissible subsequent evidence. To the extent that such an interpretation was an interference with the suspect’s private life, the interference, as qualified, was necessary to ensure prosecution of serious crime. At trial the accused had full opportunity to contest the reliability of the DNA evidence. There was no principle under the Convention that unlawfully obtained evidence was not admissible. The purpose of the criminal law is to permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. Serious crime should be effectively investigated and prosecuted, with fairness to all. This requires the court to consider three interests, the position of the accused, the victim, and the public. The austere interpretation of the Court of Appeal conflicted with the plain words of the statute and produces results which are contrary to good sense. A consideration of the public interest reinforces the interpretation adopted. The question to be asked in respect of the failure to comply with a statutory requirement was to focus on the consequences of non-compliance.

Lord Steyn
Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 15-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 63, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 2 AC 91
House of Lords, Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn) CACD 26-Mar-1999
There was an obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples in respect of persons who were acquitted. Nevertheless, if such material was unlawfully retained, it could be used for the purpose of investigating another offence, and the evidence could . .
Appeal fromRegina v B (Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1999); Regina v Weir CACD 26-May-2000
Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be . .

Cited by:
CitedSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
CitedRussell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedR, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
CitedRegina v Sargent HL 25-Oct-2001
When a telephone engineer used his position to make unauthorised telephone intercepts, and produced apparent evidence of criminal activity, he was, under the Act, a person engaged in providing a public communications system, and the recordings were . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.77969

Regina v Ogden: CACD 28 Jun 2013

The defendant had been charged for burglary on the basis, solely, of DNA evidence found on a scarf. The scarf was accidentally destroyed before the trial, and the defence had been unable to have it examined. He now appealed saying that the use of DNA evidence only should not be enough to justify a conviction.
Held: There was no case that could properly have been left to the jury. Therefore the conviction has to be quashed.

Elias LJ, MacKay J, Sir Roderick Evans
[2013] EWCA Crim 1294
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedRegina v Doheny, Adams CACD 31-Jul-1996
The court set out the procedure for the introduction of DNA evidence in criminal trials. In particular the court explained the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy’ when using statistical evidence. The significance of the DNA evidence will depend critically upon . .
CitedLashley, Regina v CACD 8-Feb-2000
The sole evidence against an appellant was DNA found on a cigarette left at the scene of the crime. It was accepted that there would be between seven and ten males in the United Kingdom to whom this profile related. There was no other evidence . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 18-Jul-2008
The defendant appealed against his convictions for robbery. The sole evidence was the presence of DNA evidence drawn from a balacava left at the scene. There was a probability of a one in a billion that it was DNA matching someone other than the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513521

Regina v Acott: HL 12 Mar 1997

Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury’ and ‘if there is no such evidence, but merely the speculative possibility that there had been an act of provocation, it is wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider provocation.’ and ‘It remained the duty of the judge to decide whether there was evidence of provoking conduct, which resulted in the defendant losing his self-control. If in the opinion of the judge, even on a view most favourable to the accused, there is insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury.’

Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann
Gazette 12-Mar-1997, Times 21-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 5, [1997] 1 All ER 706, [1997] 161 JP 368, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 94, [1997] Crim LR 514, [1997] 1 WLR 306
House of Lords, Bailii
Homicide Act 1957 3
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Acott CACD 5-Apr-1996
To decide whether a judge’s duty under section 3 was triggered it was essential to bear in mind that the word ‘provocation’ was used in an active and not a passive sense. Provocation was that which provoked; it was not the state of being in a temper . .

Cited by:
AppliedRegina v Miao CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. His main defence had been that there had been no intention to kill, but the judge had refused to leave to the jury the possibility of provocation.
Held: There was evidence of potentially . .
CitedVan Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
CitedAdolphus Campbell v The State PC 20-Aug-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The Board considered whether the Court of Appeal should consider additional medical evidence. He was said to have attacked the deceased, . .
CitedSerrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .
PreferredMiao, Regina v CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the judge should have left to the jury the issue of whether there had been provocation.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘It is for the judge to decide if there is evidence of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.86029

Davis, Regina v: CACD 23 May 2008

This appeal concerns the disputed admission, at a trial of the appellant for murder of his long-term partner, effectively his wife, of the evidence of his former girlfriend, Rosie Thorne, concerning their relationship some 20 years or so earlier. In the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, this evidence was admitted as bad character constituting ‘important explanatory evidence’ (section 101(1)(c)), that is to say evidence such that ‘without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case’ and whose ‘value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial’

Lord Justice Rix
[2008] EWCA Crim 1156, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 17, (2008) 172 JP 358
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.270455

Mcgeough, R v: CANI 7 May 2013

The defendant appealed against his convictions, inter alia, for membership of a proscribed organisation. He said that the judge should not have admitted in evidence his application for asylum in Sweden which had included his declaration of membership of the IRA. Held; The evidence of Swedish law was that such documents only attracted confidentiality if the asylum request succeeded, and: ‘the evidence was lawfully obtained in Sweden and in the United Kingdom in accordance with the international conventions applicable at the time. There was no element of compulsion on the appellant. This was a voluntary procedure. The appellant had legal advice in Sweden as to Swedish law and under Swedish law the asylum documents could properly be revealed to the authorities in another jurisdiction if the asylum application was unsuccessful. There was no evidence that the appellant was under any pressure in relation to the completion of the application. There is no evidence that the appellant would have declined to answer questions put if he had been cautioned. It was open to the appellant to give evidence at trial in relation to the contents of the application. There was no evidence that there was any fabrication or distortion within the documents.’ It was a matter of discretion as to whether such evidence was admitted, the judge had considered the relevant matters and concluded correctly.

Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ and Girvan LJ
[2013] NICA 22
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedThompson v The Queen PC 16-Feb-1998
(Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) When a defendant is of good character, ie has no convictions of any relevance or significance, he is entitled to the benefit of a good character direction from the judge when summing up to the jury, tailored to fit . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMcGeough, Regina v SC 21-Oct-2015
(Northern Ireland) The appellant had been injured in a gunfight with a policemen. He was later convicted for attempted murder, but escaped and fled the country. He applied for asylum in Sweden saying that he was a member of the IRA. He now appealed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511128

Condron v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 2000

A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing from heroin. The judge allowed the jury the option of drawing an adverse inference from their silence.
Held: The right of silence lay at the heart of a right to a fair trial. A court should be particularly careful before allowing such adverse inferences: ‘the fact that the applicants’ exercised their right to silence at the police station is relevant to the determination of the fairness issue. However that fact does not itself preclude the drawing of an adverse inference . . Similarly, the fact that the issue of the applicants’ silence was left to a jury cannot of itself be considered incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. It is, rather, another relevant consideration to be weighed in the balance when assessing whether or not it was fair to do so in the circumstances.’ It was mandatory, when giving guidance to the jury on s.34, to direct the jury that they should not draw an adverse inference from silence unless they were satisfied that the silence could only be attributed to the defendant having no answer to the Crown’s case, or none that would stand up to cross-examination.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No separate issue under Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Times 09-May-2000, 35718/97, (2001) 31 EHRR 1, [2000] ECHR 191, [2000] Po LR 139, 8 BHRC 290, [2000] Crim LR 679
Worldlii, Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 19945, European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .

Cited by:
CitedRaymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina CACD 9-Feb-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of . .
CitedCollins and Keep v Regina CACD 28-Jan-2004
When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
CitedRegina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
CitedWebster v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedBlack v Regina CACD 17-Jul-2020
Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference
The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.165872

MK v Regina: CACD 28 Mar 2018

The court was asked whether the legal (or persuasive) burden of proof rests on the defendant when a defence is raised under section 45 of the 2015 Act, or whether the defendant bears only an evidential burden with the prosecution having to disprove to the criminal standard one or more of the elements of the defence. The applications for leave to appeal have been referred to the full court by the Registrar.

Lord Burnett CJ, Andrews DBE, Martin Spencer JJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 667, [2018] WLR(D) 203, [2018] Crim LR 922, [2018] 2 Cr App R 14, [2018] 3 WLR 895, [2018] 3 All ER 566
Bailii, Bailii, WLRD
Modern Slavery Act 2015 45
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.608703

Bahador, Regina v: CACD 15 Feb 2005

The appellant was charged with pre-2003 Act sexual offences. He wished to give evidence that he honestly believed the complainant was consenting to sexual activity with him because, earlier on the same evening, he had observed her behaving in a sexually explicit manner on stage in a nightclub. He sought leave to cross-examine the complainant as to that behaviour. The prosecution argued that the complainant’s earlier behaviour was irrelevant to the issue of his belief; to hold otherwise would mean that ‘every stripper who performed at a club would convey the message that by conducting herself in that way she was indicating that she was consenting to sexual attention by someone such as the appellant, and consent in particular to be touched in a sexual manner by a complete stranger’.
Held: Lord Woolf said that ‘looking purely at the question of relevance, we feel compelled to conclude that as the appellant’s defence was one based on his honest belief, it is difficult to say that what he contended to have taken place on the stage could not be relevant’. Nevertheless, relevance to an issue in the case was not the only matter that the judge had to consider. Even if the appellant could satisfy the requirement of sub-section 3(a), the judge must also consider, under section 41(2)(b), whether a decision to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury on that issue. If it would not, leave would be refused.
Lord Woolf identified the legislative intention behind section 41(2)(b): ‘ . . it was framed in that way because it was the policy of the Act to protect women who make complaints about sexual offences committed against them; it protected them from inappropriate and harassing cross-examination. The experience of the legislature leading to the enactment of the 1999 Act was that unless the cross-examination and the making of accusations against complainants was limited within appropriate bounds, fewer women would come forward to make complaints about sexual assaults on them. The policy was to protect complainants in proceedings in relation to sexual offences alleged to have been committed against them. It seems therefore to us that it can be reasonably said in the context of this case as a whole, albeit that what was alleged to have happened on the stage . . was, strictly speaking, relevant to an issue in the case, the judge would have been entitled to exclude the evidence of what is alleged to have occurred on the stage and cross-examination as to it.’

Lord Woolf CJ, Davis and Field JJ
[2005] EWCA Crim 396
Bailii
Sexual Offences Act 2003 16
Cited by:
CitedGjoni v Regina CACD 9-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, raising an issue as to the proper approach to a judgment whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of the complainant relating to a ‘relevant issue in the case’ within the meaning of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.260089

Braithwaite v Regina: CACD 25 May 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the court should have allowed him to bring bad character evidence against crown witnesses. There had been a street fight, and substantial evidence was given by associates of the deceased who themselves had histories of violence. The judge had allowed evidence of convictions cautions and penalty notices, but not material in police crime reports.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had excluded the evidence correctly. The test for evidence as against a prosecution witness was not, under the statute, the same as for a defendant.
The evidence had to have substantial probative value and importance rather than being ‘relevant’. Once the conditions were met, the judge had no discretion to refuse to admit the evidence, though leave was still required.
Hughes LJ discussed the admission of CRIS reports: ‘First, it is, at best, hearsay. Its admission would fall to be judged by reference to the conditions for the admission of hearsay and we venture to suggest that given the difficulties of the jury in assessing such evidence it would be rare for it to be judged to be of substantial probative value. Secondly, if the complainant has failed to support the allegation that robs it of a great deal of probative value. If, in addition, there has been a decision by the police or CPS not to pursue the allegation or even, as in one instance in the present case, the formal acceptance of a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’, the probative value is even further reduced.’ Such evidence should normally be accepted only when it contained admissions.

Hughes LJ VP, Maddison,Thirlwall JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1082, [2010] WLR (D) 141, [2010] Crim LR 855, [2010] 2 Cr App R 18, (2010) 174 JP 387
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bovell; Regina v Dowds CACD 25-Apr-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions. In one case the prosecution had brought evidence of bad character. Bovell was convicted of wounding with intent, pleading self-defence. His legal team later discovered that the complainant had himself been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416056

Horncastle and Others, Regina v: SC 9 Dec 2009

Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the court must implement the ECHR decision in Al-Khawaja.
Held: The appeals failed. ‘The requirement to ‘take into account’ the Strasbourg jurisprudence will normally result in this Court applying principles that are clearly established by the Strasbourg Court. There will, however, be rare occasions where this court has concerns as to whether a decision of the Strasbourg Court sufficiently appreciates or accommodates particular aspects of our domestic process. In such circumstances it is open to this court to decline to follow the Strasbourg decision, giving reasons for adopting this course. This is likely to give the Strasbourg court the opportunity to reconsider the particular aspect of the decision that is in issue, so that there takes place what may prove to be a valuable dialogue between the domestic court and the Strasbourg court.’
It is our common law tradition that the defendant is entitled to examine the witnesses against him and only in strictly circumscribed circumstances will a hearsay statement be admitted in the interest of justice.’
‘Article 6(3)(d) is concerned with the fairness of the trial procedure. It recognises that a fair procedure should entitle the defendant to have examined the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. What the article does not deal with is the procedure that is appropriate where it is simply not possible to comply with article 6(3)(d); where, for instance, after making a statement, the witness for the prosecution or defence has died. Fairness does not require that in such circumstances the evidence of the witness should not be admitted at the trial. On the contrary it may well require that it should be admitted.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr, Lord Judge
Times 10-Dec-2009, [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] UKHRR 1, [2010] 1 Cr App R 17, [2010] 2 WLR 47, [2009] WLR (D) 358, [2010] HRLR 12, [2010] 2 All ER 359, [2010] 2 AC 373, UKSC 2009/0073
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Criminal Justice Act 2003 116, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Human Rights Act 1998 2(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHorncastle and Others v Regina CACD 22-May-2009
Each defendant appealed on the basis that they had not had proper opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses whose evidence had been accepted by the court. In each case evidence had been hearsay. In two cases, the witness had died before . .
CitedMyers v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1965
Limits to Admission of Hearsay Evidence
It was not for the House to alter the admissibility of hearsay evidence on a case by case basis.
Lord Reid said: ‘I have never taken a narrow view of the functions of this House as an appellate tribunal. The common law must be developed to . .
CitedX v Germany ECHR 1979
Paragraph (3)(d) rights applied at the trial and not when a witness was being questioned by the police. . .
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedFerrari-Bravo v Italy ECHR 1984
Paragraph (3)(d) rights did not apply when a witness was being questioned by the investigating judge, but only at trial. . .
CitedAl-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 . .
CitedArtner v Austria ECHR 28-Aug-1992
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d . .
CitedRegina 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, . .
CitedY, 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 . .
CitedRegina v Finch CACD 15-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm, complaining that the statement of his co-accused had not been admitted. The judge saying that since the co-accused had admitted the offence he had no jurisdiction to admit the . .
CitedKrasniki v The Czech Republic ECHR 28-Feb-2006
. .
CitedDoorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
CitedGrant 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 . .
CitedSellick 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 . .
CitedD (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
CitedVisser v The Netherlands ECHR 14-Feb-2002
The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were . .
CitedTrivedi v United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-1997
. .
CitedLuca 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 . .
CitedKok v The Netherlands ECHR 1999
Following a police raid leading to the discovery of a cache of arms, the police took a statement from an anonymous witness as to the delivery of the arms to the house (though the precise date of delivery was withheld). The investigating judge heard . .
CitedLuca 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 . .
CitedAl-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. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v EED CACD 28-May-2010
A witness had been warned to attend court, but had not served with an order and did not attend. The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that her evidence should not have been read to the jury. He had faced allegations of sexual abuse of . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
CitedManchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
CitedAl-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2011
(Grand Chamber) The claimants complained of the use against them of hearsay evidence in their trials.
Held: ‘the underlying principle is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence . .
CitedAdeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .
CitedRegina v Riat and Others CACD 11-Jul-2012
Five defendants appealed against their convictions after the admission of hearsay evidence.
Held: The court re-iterated that the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case remained a vital consideration when deciding upon its . .
CitedIbrahim, Regina v CACD 27-Apr-2012
The appellant challenged the admissibility of witness statements made by the complainant where the complainant had died before the trial.
Held: The ‘counterbalancing measures’ in the 2003 Act and at the common law had not been properly . .
CitedTaylor v Regina CACD 20-Dec-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction, for sex offences some 33 years earlier, saying that the convictions had been unfairly obtained. Evidence had been available since 1980, but a decision not to prosecute had been taken.
Held: ‘the . .
At SCHorncastle And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Jan-2013
The claimants alleged unfair in their trial after admission in evidence of statements of witnesses who had died before the trial. . .
At SCHorncastle And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-2014
The applicants alleged that the admission of witness statements from the deceased alleged victims at their trial rendered the proceedings unfair. . .
CitedHaney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
CitedHand and Another v George ChD 17-Mar-2017
Adopted grandchildren entitled to succession
The court was asked whether the adopted children whose adopting father, the son of the testator, were grandchildren of the testator for the purposes of his will.
Held: The claim succeeded. The defendants, the other beneficiaries were not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.383787

Miller v Regina: CACD 26 May 2010

The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing drugs with intent to supply. He said that the court should not have allowed the cross-examination of a defence witness as to that witness’ bad character. The witness was on remand facing similar charges. The prosecution suggested that his circumstances provided a reason to take responsibility for the defendant’s actions.
Held: For a witness’ to be cross examined as to his characer, his credibility must be a substantial issue in the trial, and that bad character must have substantial probative value relative to the issue of that credibility: ‘Evidence of bad character is not confined to proof of previous convictions, but whether or not the evidence relied upon comprises convictions or previous conduct otherwise proved, it must pass the section 100(1) test of being (1) important explanatory evidence or (2) of substantial probative value on an issue of substantial importance. The purpose of section 100 in the present context is to limit the ambit of cross-examination to that which is substantially probative on the issue of credibility, if credibility is an issue of substantial importance in the case. One of its intended effects is to eliminate kite-flying and innuendo against the character of a witness in favour of a concentration upon the real issues in the case.’
The matters against the witness remained unproven accusations, which the witness could only be expected to deny, and: ‘These questions should not, by reason of the unfair prejudice they were capable of producing, have been permitted, certainly not unless the prosecution intended, with the judge’s leave, to prove them.’
However the judge’s warning had been strong and clear, and the other evidence also sufficient. The conviction remained safe.

Pitchford, Maddison, MacDuff LJJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1153, [2010] WLR (D) 142, [2010] 2 Cr App R 19
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRenda, Regina v; Regina v Ball; Regina v Akram etc CACD 10-Nov-2005
Each defendant had been convicted after admission of bad character evidence against them under the 2003 Act.
Held: The admission of such evidence was a matter of discretion for the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion will only rarely . .
CitedRegina v Weir, Somanathan,Yaxley-Lennon, Manister, Qiang He and De Qun He CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendant objected to evidence being used as evidence of bad character against him under the 2003 Act, when it would not have been admissible as similar fact evidence under the old rules.
Held: Obiter dicta in O’Brien did not mean that the . .
CitedRegina v Bovell; Regina v Dowds CACD 25-Apr-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions. In one case the prosecution had brought evidence of bad character. Bovell was convicted of wounding with intent, pleading self-defence. His legal team later discovered that the complainant had himself been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.416058

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): HL 8 Dec 2005

The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the decisions had probably been obtained by torture committed by foreign powers, and should not have been admitted. The respondent said that in the absence of evidence that torture had been used, the evidence should be admitted.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Evidence obtained by means of torture should not be admitted. Protection against the use of torture is a fundamental right. The common law has not for many years admitted such evidence. The Home Secretary’s attempted distinction between evidence derived from torture by friendly foreign states and by the UK was unsustainable. The Torture Convention barred the use of such information wherever gathered.
The executive made different kinds of decisions to those made by the courts, and might act on a wider range of material, but courts could not countenance use of such evidence. The Home Secretary’s suggestion that the courts might act on evidence not proved to be obtained in this way was also unsustainable. The normal rules of evidence could not be applied. A suspect was not in a position to raise proof of the provenance of evidence he was not allowed to know of. The Torture Convention set a standard, which the courts must apply, that of testing whether such provenance had been established, by whatever means was available to it: ‘a conventional approach to the burden of proof is appropriate in a proceeding where the appellant may not know the name or identity of the author of an adverse statement relied on against him, may not see the statement or know what the statement says, may not be able to discuss the adverse evidence with the special advocate appointed (without responsibility) to represent his interests, and may have no means of knowing what witness he should call to rebut assertions of which he is unaware. It would, on the other hand, render section 25 appeals all but unmanageable if a generalised and unsubstantiated allegation of torture were in all cases to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prove the absence of torture. It is necessary, in this very unusual forensic setting, to devise a procedure which affords some protection to an appellant without imposing on either party a burden which he cannot ordinarily discharge. ‘
Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood: ‘SIAC could never properly uphold a section 23 detention order where the sole or decisive evidence supporting it is a statement established to have been coerced by the use of torture. To hold otherwise would be, as several of your Lordships have observed, to bring British justice into disrepute. And this is so notwithstanding that the appellant was properly certified and detained by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security, notwithstanding that the legislation (now, of course, repealed) allowed the appellant’s continuing detention solely on the ground of suspicion and belief, notwithstanding that the incriminating coerced statement was made not by the appellant himself but by some third party, and notwithstanding that it was made abroad and without the complicity of any British official. ‘
Lord Bingham said: ‘There is reason to regard it as a duty of states, save perhaps in limited and exceptional circumstances, as where immediately necessary to protect a person from unlawful violence or property from destruction, to reject the fruits of torture inflicted in breach of international law. As McNally JA put it in S v Nkomo 1989 (3) ZLR 117, 131: ‘It does not seem to me that one can condemn torture while making use of the mute confession resulting from torture, because the effect is to encourage torture.”

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] 3 WLR 1249, [2006] 2 AC 221, [2005] UKHL 71, Times 09-Dec-2005, [2006] 1 All ER 575, 19 BHRC 441, [2006] UKHRR 225, [2006] HRLR 6
Bailii, House of Lords
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 21 23 25, European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)(f)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedPearse v Pearse 2-Jan-1846
Legal privilege was claimed for communications related to transactions concerning the client’s lands and unconnected with any existing or anticipated litigation.
Held: The work done was all part of one transaction of the nature in which . .
CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
CitedCustoms and Excise Commissioners v Harz and Power; Regina v Harz and Power HL 1967
The rule that a confessional statement is not admissible if it was induced by a fear of prejudice or a hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority applies equally where the inducement does not relate to the actual or . .
CitedHui Chi-ming v The Queen PC 5-Aug-1991
(Hong Kong) The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a murder. A, carrying a length of water pipe and accompanied by the defendant and four other youths, seized a man and A hit him with the pipe, causing injuries from which he died. No . .
CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
CitedNadeem Akhtar Saifi v Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India Admn 21-Dec-2000
The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted.
Held: the court accepted the magistrate’s judgment that fairness did . .
CitedRex v Warickshall 1783
Evidence that stolen goods were found under the bed of the accused was admitted notwithstanding that the discovery was made in consequence of her inadmissible confession. Evidence obtained by oppression should be admitted to court. Involuntary . .
CitedRegina v William Baldry 1852
A police constable, who apprehended a man on a charge of murder, having told him the nature of the charge aganist him, said ‘he need not say any thing to criminate himself – what he did say would he taken down, and used as evidence against him.’ The . .
CitedRegina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
CitedLam Chi-ming v The Queen PC 1991
The inadmissibility of a confession not proved to be voluntary is perhaps the most fundamental rule of the English criminal law.
Lord Griffiths summarised the justification for the rule excluding evidence obtained improperly. Accepting that ‘a . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ping Lin PC 1976
The Board was asked whether a statement by the defendant was shown to be voluntary.
Held: A trial Judge faced by the problem should approach the task in a common sense way and should ask himself whether the prosecution had proved that the . .
CitedWong Kam-Ming v The Queen PC 20-Dec-1978
The voir dire system allows a defendant to give his evidence on the limited issues surrounding the circumstances under which his statement was made as to the admissibility of the confession, without infringing his right to elect not to give evidence . .
CitedRegina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
CitedRegina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad HL 23-Jan-1996
The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process.
Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an . .
CitedRegina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .
CitedSchenk v Switzerland ECHR 12-Jul-1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
CitedRegina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
CitedSoering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
CitedGarcia Alva v Germany ECHR 13-Feb-2001
The complainant had been arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was detained on remand. When he brought an application for review of his detention his lawyers were not given access to a number of documents in the file, including the . .
CitedKhan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .
CitedFerrantelli and Santangelo v Italy ECHR 7-Aug-1996
The matter of admissibility of evidence is primarily one for the national courts: ‘It [the Court] recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess . .
CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
CitedTeixeira De Castro v Portugal ECHR 9-Jun-1998
Mr De Castro had been the target of an unwarranted, unauthorised, unsupervised police operation in which undercover officers incited him to supply drugs. He challenged a conviction for trafficking in heroin, based mainly on statements of two police . .
CitedAydin v Turkey ECHR 25-Sep-1997
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 25-1; Not necessary to . .
CitedJH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
CitedHarutyunyan v Armenia ECHR 5-Jul-2005
Held: ‘As to the complaint about the coercion and the subsequent use in court of the applicant’s confession statement, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that . .
CitedMamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey ECHR 4-Feb-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had resisted extradition to Uzbekistan from Turkey to stand trial on very serious charges, saying that if returned they would be tortured. There was material to show that that was not a fanciful fear. On application . .
CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
CitedRamda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 27-Jun-2002
The Government of France sought the extradition of Ramda wanted by them for trial in connection with a series of terrorist bombings in France. The applicant resisted extradition to France on the ground that the evidence which would be relied on . .
CitedMontgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .
CitedIn Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .
CitedGolder v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1975
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
CitedMcElhinney v Ireland; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom; Fogarty v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2001
Grand Chamber – The first applicant said he had been injured by a shot fired by a British soldier who had been carried for two miles into the Republic of Ireland, clinging to the applicant’s vehicle following an incident at a checkpoint.
Held: . .
CitedV v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
CitedSelmouni v France ECHR 28-Jul-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 3; Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – . .
CitedProsecutor v Furundzija 1-Apr-1999
(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: ‘There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ‘the torturer . .
CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedMakanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 1990
A plain clothed off duty police officer gained entry to premises by production of his warrant card. He enquired as to the immigration status of the two residents. He told them they were in breach of the immigration regulations, and demanded sexual . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Ex Parte Wiley; Other Similar HL 14-Jul-1994
Statements made to the police to support a complaint against the police, were not part of the class of statements which could attract public interest immunity, and were therefore liable to disclosure.
Lord Woolf said: ‘The recognition of a new . .
CitedChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
CitedLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory ICJ 9-Jul-2004
The court explained the consequences of the breach of international law which it found: ‘Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize . .
CitedKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Leathem 1861
The court overruled an objection to production of a letter which had been discovered in consequence of an inadmissible statement made by the accused: ‘It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible.’ . .
CitedRegina v Birmingham Overseers 1861
Cockburn CJ: ‘People were formerly frightened out of their wits about admitting evidence, lest juries should go wrong. In modern times we admit the evidence, and discuss its weight.’ . .
CitedKuruma v The Queen PC 8-Dec-1954
(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord . .
CitedRex v Lord Rusby 1800
The common law, in being formed from time to time by the wisdom of man it grew and increased from time to time with the wisdom of mankind. . .
CitedHurtado v California 1884
Common Law Not Written in Stone
(US Supreme Court) Matthews J spoke of the need for the common law to move forward: ‘as it was the characteristic principle of the common law to draw its inspiration from every fountain of justice, we are not to assume that the sources of its supply . .
CitedPrager v Blatspiel, Stamp and Heacock Ltd 1924
McCardie J spoke of the demand of an expanding society for an expanding common law. An agent must act bona fide in the interests of his principal. . .
CitedRegina v Lichniak HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate.
Held: The case followed on . .
CitedMcclean, Re an Application for Judicial Review 14 CANI 23-Apr-2004
The appellant was serving a prison term for murder. He was being considered for release under the Good Friday agreement, but on home leave he was again involved in further serious violence. He was recalled and his entitlement to early release was . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for the Home Department v M CA 18-Mar-2004
The applicant had been detained under the appellant’s certificate that he was a suspected terrorist.
Held: The fact that there were suspicions surrounding the detainee did not mean that those suspicions were necessarily reasonable suspicions . .

Cited by:
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedAhmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
CitedRegina v Barot CACD 16-May-2007
The defendant had been convicted of a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, though no violence had been undertaken. He appealed a life sentence with a minimum term of forty years.
Held: The minimum term should be reduced to thirty years. The . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
CitedZagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others Admn 29-Nov-2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice . .
CitedEquality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
CitedYoussef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 27-Jan-2016
An Egyptian national, had lived here since 1994. He challenged a decision by the Secretary of State,as a member of the committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or Sanctions Committee. The committee . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Straw and Others SC 17-Jan-2017
The claimant alleged complicity by the defendant, (now former) Foreign Secretary, in his mistreatment by the US while held in Libya. He also alleged involvement in his unlawful abduction and removal to Libya, from which had had fled for political . .
CitedShagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.235838

Brizzalari v Regina: CACD 19 Feb 2004

Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences

In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that failure. The judge endorsed that view to the jury. It was also argued that the committal had been defective.
Held: The committal had not been so defective as to create an injustice. The judge was free to leave such a claim to the jury, but prosecutors were to be encouraged not to invite such inferences too freely: ‘the mischief at which the provision was primarily directed was the positive defence following a ‘no comment’ interview and/or the ‘ambush’ defence’.
Section 34 CJPOA 1994 was enacted to deter late fabrication of defences and to encourage early disclosure of genuine defences by reducing no comment interview and ambush defences.

Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Penry-Davey Mr Justice Hedley
Times 03-Mar-2004, [2004] EWCA Crim 310
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
CitedRegina v McGarry CACD 16-Jul-1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the . .
CitedRegina v Norfolk Stipendary Magistrates ex parte Keable Admn 29-Jan-1998
A police investigation into an offence not yet committed, did not count as an investigation into that offence for the purposes of setting the start date under the Act. . .
CitedRegina v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina v City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper QBD 7-Dec-1999
There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of ‘criminal investigation’ has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation . .
CitedRegina v Scott Thomas CACD 2002
. .
CitedRegina v Hall CACD 1981
The certificate sent by the Magistrates on committal to the Crown Court indicated that the committal had been under legislation not yet applicable to the particular defendant. The procedure envisaged under each statute was the same, and, as this . .
CitedRegina v Carey 1983
Magistrates had failed to sign the committal papers when sending the case to the crown court.
Held: Applying Hall, the committal remained effective. . .
CitedRegina v Barnet Magistrates’ Court ex parte Wood 1993
During the committal proceedings, the defendant had behaved in a disruptive fashion, and the clerk failed to remind him fully of his rights to call evidence.
Held: The failure was a procedural irregularity which affected what happened . .
CitedNeill v North Antrim Justices and Another HL 3-Mar-1993
First degree hearsay evidence is inadmissible when used in an application to show the cause of a witness not attending court. In judicial review proceedings in relation to committal proceedings the test is ‘whether or not a really substantial error . .
CitedRegina v Bloomfield CACD 25-Jun-1996
It was an abuse of process to proceed with a prosecution in the face of an unequivocal statement by counsel for the Crown to the Court that the prosecution would tender no evidence. There was no change of circumstances which might have justified . .
CitedRegina v M and Others CACD 2-Sep-1999
Evidence of the proper background to the offence was normally admissible, even if this revealed previous offences by the defendant, and despite the fact that such offences might not be admissible on a similar fact basis. Where the jury could not . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Christou (George) HL 10-May-1996
Separate sex offence charges may be tried together even though the evidence is not to be allowed to be accumulated as between the offences. While the question of the admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence in relation to various counts joined in . .
CitedRegina v Jones CACD 20-Dec-2002
The defendant might have been chaged with an offence under section 6 of the Act, of unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16, but the prosecution would have been outside the time limit of twelve months. Instead he was prosecuted for an offence . .
CitedRegina v Raynor CACD 19-Sep-2000
A statement in the form of a translation of the witness’s evidence to the interpreter was not the statement of the witness. The statement should be provided in the witness’s original words, and a translation then made. In this case however no . .
CitedRegina v Musquera CACD 1999
The court observed that, while the decision in DPP v P had eliminated the necessity to identify a striking similarity, it was still necessary to invoke some identifiable common feature or features constituting a significant connection and going . .

Cited by:
CitedBeckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
CitedBlack v Regina CACD 17-Jul-2020
Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference
The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.193914

Phipps v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: PC 27 Jun 2012

phipps_dppPC2012

(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that he had been prejudiced because the jury were told that he had been produced from custody, and one of his witnesses was produced in court in chains, thus undermining their evidence. The court of appeal had accepted that the latter had been unexplained and heavy handed. He also complained of the use of evidence that his voice had been recognised.
Held: The appeal failed. The prejudice to the defendant was dealt with properly by the judge in his directions. As to the use of evidence of identification by voice recognition, ‘The judge could hardly have done more to bring to the attention the need for caution in considering this part of the evidence, and the reasons for it, and their duty to consider each of the witnesses individually.’

Lord Hope, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2012] UKPC 24
Bailii
Citing:
CitedRegina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
CitedRegina v Robb CACD 1991
The evidence of an expert to prove identification by voice was admissible. Also voice recognition evidence given by a phonetician was admissible as expert evidence; and that evidence of police officers who listened to disputed tapes and recognised . .
CitedRegina v Clare, Regina v Peach CACD 7-Apr-1995
A Police Constable’s very detailed analysis of video evidence in a case made him an ad hoc expert on it.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The phrase ‘expert ad hoc’ seeks to put witnesses like Detective Parsons and PC Fitzpatrick into the . .
CitedAurelio Pop v The Queen PC 22-May-2003
PC (Belize) A witness identified the accused only making the link between the man he knew as R and the accused as the result of an improper leading question by prosecuting counsel. There had been no . .
CitedShand v The Queen PC 27-Nov-1995
(Jamaica) The case for the defence was that the identification witnesses were deliberately lying and it was not suggested that they were mistaken, so that the sole line of defence was fabrication. The identification evidence was exceptionally good . .
CitedFlynn and Another, Regina v CACD 2-May-2008
The court considered the practice of identification by voice recognition, giving detailed guidance on its acceptance and use. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.461742

Regina v Twist and Others: CACD 12 May 2011

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:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedY, 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 . .
CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedRegina 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.
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina v Fox CACD 28-Apr-2010
The contents of an anonymous 999 call were inadmissible as evidence that the facts reported were true. . .
CitedRegina 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

Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1965

Limits to Admission of Hearsay Evidence

It was not for the House to alter the admissibility of hearsay evidence on a case by case basis.
Lord Reid said: ‘I have never taken a narrow view of the functions of this House as an appellate tribunal. The common law must be developed to meet changing economic conditions and habits of thought, and I would not be deterred by expressions of opinion in this House in old cases. But there are limits to what we can or should do. If we are to extend the law it must be by the development and application of fundamental principles. We cannot introduce arbitrary conditions or limitations: that must be left to legislation. And if we do in effect change the law, we ought in my opinion only to do that in cases where our decision will produce some finality or certainty. If we disregard technicalities in this case and seek to apply principle and common sense, there are a number of other parts of the existing law of hearsay susceptible of similar treatment, and we shall probably have a series of appeals in cases where the existing technical limitations produce an unjust result. If we are to give a wide interpretation to our judicial functions questions of policy cannot be wholly excluded, and it seems to me to be against public policy to produce uncertainty. The only satisfactory solution is by legislation following on a wide survey of the whole field, and I think that such a survey is overdue. A policy of make do and mend is no longer adequate. The most powerful argument of those who support the strict doctrine of precedent is that if it is relaxed judges will be tempted to encroach on the proper field of the legislature, and this case to my mind offers a strong temptation to that which ought to be resisted.’

Lord Reid
[1965] AC 1001, [1964] 2 All ER 881, [1964] 3 WLR 145
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
CitedRegina v Blastland HL 1985
The majority decision of the House in Myers v DPP ‘established the principle, never since challenged, that it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to create new exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ and ‘Hearsay evidence is not excluded because it . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.222547

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 each case, applying Luca, the trials infringed the right to a fair trial since the evidence of the witness at issue was decisive. It was not the case that the defendant was responsible for the absence of the witness in either case. The directions given could not outweight the damage caused.

[2009] ECHR 26766/05, [2009] ECHR 110, 26766/05, 22228/06
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 25, Criminal Justice Act 2003 116(2)(e)
Human Rights
Citing:
See AlsoAl-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. . .
CitedDoorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
CitedDi Luca And Saluzzi v Italy ECHR 2-Sep-1997
ECHR Basic distinction in law of many member States of the Council of Europe between civil servants and employees governed by private law – Court has accordingly held that disputes relating to recruitment, . .
CitedKrasniki v The Czech Republic ECHR 28-Feb-2006
. .
At Court of AppealAl-Khawaja v Regina CACD 3-Nov-2005
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 . .
DistinguishedSellick 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 . .
CitedVisser v The Netherlands ECHR 14-Feb-2002
The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were . .
CitedUnterpertinger v Austria ECHR 24-Nov-1986
The defendant was convicted of causing actual bodily harm, mainly on the basis of statements which his wife and daughter had given to the police. His wife and daughter took advantage of their right not to give evidence at his trial and so could not . .
CitedBarbera, Messegua, and Jabardo v Spain ECHR 6-Dec-1988
ECHR The presumption of innocence would be violated if, without the accused having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflected an opinion that he was guilty. The . .
CitedPS v Germany ECHR 20-Dec-2001
The applicant had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child. The evidence against him consisted of a statement made by the child’s mother about what her daughter had told her, and evidence by a police officer who had questioned the daughter shortly . .
CitedLuca 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 . .
CitedKostovski 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 by:
See AlsoAl-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 . .
CitedHorncastle and Others v Regina CACD 22-May-2009
Each defendant appealed on the basis that they had not had proper opportunity to cross examine prosecution witnesses whose evidence had been accepted by the court. In each case evidence had been hearsay. In two cases, the witness had died before . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
See AlsoAl-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2011
(Grand Chamber) The claimants complained of the use against them of hearsay evidence in their trials.
Held: ‘the underlying principle is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.374250

Regina v Pecco: CACD 22 Apr 2010

The defendant appealed against her conviction for robbery. She had been convicted after an identification parade, which she said had not been conducted properly.
Held: The defendant had two significant and apparent tattoos. Each of the other members of the parade could be excluded from identification because they had no tattoo. The parade had minimal evidential value and should have been excluded. In the absence of other evidence, the appeal succeeded: ‘it is important that this Code is adhered to. Mistakes in identification leading to the conviction of innocent persons have been all too common in the past. The rules as to identification parades are intended to minimise that risk.’

Stanley-Burnton LJ, Tugendhat J, Stewart QC J
[2010] EWCA Crim 972
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.425196

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 7 of 2000): CACD 29 Mar 2001

The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Insolvency Act. Evidence of his gambling was found in cheque stubs, bank statements, returned cheques and a betting file containing loose gambling statements by way of computer print outs produced by Ladbrokes and a bookmaker’s schedule of gambling transactions. The bankrupt had not contributed himself to any of these documents. He was required to produce these documents to the Official Receiver under the provisions of section 291 of the Insolvency Act which carried with it the sanction of proceedings for contempt of court punishable with up to two years imprisonment under sub-section (6) of that section. He handed them over. The question was, whether the admission of such documents was unfair, when they did not, themselves, contain statements obtained from the defendant under compulsion.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal against an order allowing the claim for privilege succeeded. The privilege against self-incrimination was not absolute, and assorted statutes had infringed that right. The Saunders case at the ECHR had distinguished between statements obtained from the accused, and documents, and other material, which were independent of the statement. That distinction was appropriate, and the use of such documents did not infringe the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Rose LJ VP, Rougier LJ, McCombe LJ
Times 12-Apr-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1879, [2001] 2 CAR 19, [2001] EWCA Crim 888, [2001] BPIR 953, [2001] 2 Cr App R 19, [2001] 2 CAR 19, [2001] HRLR 41, [2001] Crim LR 736
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 291 (1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v Khan (Attorney-General’s Reference No 7 of 2000); Same v Saunders (AG Ref 10 of 2000); Same v Paul (AG Ref 9 of 2000); Same v Wakelin (AG Ref 8 of 2000) CACD 15-Jun-2000
Robbery committed on public transport, against young persons, will lead to a custodial sentence, save in wholly exceptional circumstances. There is a need to provide deterrence, for what has become a common crime. Sentences of between twelve and . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Kearns CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant had failed to account for the disappearance of a substantial part of his estate to the official receiver following his bankruptcy. He appealed his conviction for failing to provide an account, saying that the requirement to provide . .
CitedC Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
cplc_pChD2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
CitedC Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
CitedRegina v S and A CACD 9-Oct-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2000 Act for failing to disclose the key used to encrypt a computer file. He was subject to a control order as a suspected terrorist. As the police raided his house, they found the key had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.78015

Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 19 Dec 2012

The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently detailed, and that the police had acted in breach of his article 8 rights in obtaining evidence by surveillance since they had failed to obtain authorisation for the surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Strictly, the appeal which challenged the action of police officers did not raise a devolution issue, since such were limited to actions of members of the Scottish government.
Even so, there had been no interference with the appellant’s article 6 or 8 rights. The fact that evidence is irregularly obtained because there is no authorisation under the 2000 Act does not of itself make that evidence inadmissible at common law. Nor does the fact that the evidence is obtained in breach of article 8 necessarily mean that it would be incompatible with article 6 for that evidence to be led at the trial. It could not reasonably be suggested that a police officer who came upon a person who has committed a crime in a public place and simply noted down his observations in his notebook was interfering with the person’s article 8 right. In this case, notes of the Appellant’s movements in public over several hours were covertly made by the police in a planned operation.
Lord Hope DPSC said: ‘There is nothing in the present case to suggest that the appellant could reasonably have had any [reasonable] expectation of privacy. He engaged in these activities in places where he was open to public view by neighbours, by persons in the street or by anyone else who happened to be watching what was going on . . The criminal nature of what he was doing, if that is what it was found to be, was not an aspect of his private life that he was entitled to keep private . . ‘

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed
[2012] UKSC 62, 2013 GWD 1-18, [2012] WLR(D) 385, [2012] 2 WLR 141, UKSC 2011/0251
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Scotland Act 1998
Scotland
Citing:
CitedGary Follen v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 8-Mar-2001
PC High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) The defendant said that a trial under the section infringed his right to a fair trial, because of a ten month delay by the prosecutor. On arrest he had been recalled to . .
CitedKhan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .
CitedMcGibbon and Corstorphine v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 19-Feb-2004
It was conceded that there had been a breach of article 8 in the obtaining of covert video and audio recordings of the appellants’ incriminating conversations.
Held: If there was a breach by the police of article 8, it did not follow that the . .
CitedLawrie v Muir HCJ 23-Nov-1949
The prosecution case was said to have been based on evidence acquired during an unlawful search of the defendant’s premises.
Held: An irregularity in the method by which evidence has been obtained does not necessarily make that evidence . .
CitedMalone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. . .
CitedAmann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to interception of telephone call; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to creation and storing of information card; Preliminary objection . .
CitedRotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
CitedHoekstra and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate High Court of Justiciary PC 26-Oct-2000
The Privy Council has no standing to act as a general court of appeal on Scottish law. The jurisdiction given to it by the Act, was limited as prescribed by the Act to what are called devolution issues, issues related to the acts of devolution. Not . .
CitedPG and JH v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-2001
The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to . .
CitedPerry v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jul-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The claimant had been arrested, then released to attend an identification parade. Several attempts . .
CitedGilchrist and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 24-Aug-2004
The defendants were to stand trial for drugs offences, but raised a devoltion issue as to the use of police surveillance products gathered under the 2000 Act. They said that the authorisation to carry out the surveillance had been granted on . .
CitedBykov v Russia ECHR 10-Mar-2009
. .
CitedBykov v Russia ECHR 10-Mar-2009
. .

Cited by:
CitedCatt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 4-Mar-2015
Police Data Retention Justifiable
The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T . .
CitedZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Constitutional, Human Rights, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.467184

Public Prosecution Service v McKee: SC 22 May 2013

Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints

The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, when such approval has never been given? In particular, is any evidence which makes use of the control fingerprints thus taken inadmissible in any subsequent court proceedings? ‘
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Parliament did not intend, by enacting article 61(8B), that the consequence of an absence of approval should be to render inadmissible any fingerprints produced electronically. The rule in Scott v Baker did not apply since that set out to measure something which could only be measured once and at the time, and that related to evidence which was at the heart of the offence involved, and ‘The control fingerprints taken from the appellants in the police station were not snapshots. The impressions which their fingers provided could be reproduced at any time afterwards, and would be the same. The accuracy of the Livescan readings, if disputed, could readily be checked independently by the appellants providing more samples, whether by ink and paper or by any other means, for examination by an independent expert. The ease with which this can at any time be done demonstrates that there was no need at all for Parliament to stipulate, or to intend, that the product of unapproved electronic fingerprint readers should be inadmissible. ‘

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes
[2013] UKSC 32, [2013] NI 133, [2013] 2 Cr App R 17, [2013] 3 All ER 365, [2013] WLR(D) 199, [2013] 1 WLR 1611, UKSC 2012/0007
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedKuruma v The Queen PC 8-Dec-1954
(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord . .
CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
CitedRegina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Appeal fromThe Public Prosecution Service v Elliott and Another CANI 28-Sep-2011
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the case based upon fingerprint evidence. The prints had been taken digitally using a device which had not been approved as required. . .
DistinguishedScott v Baker 1968
The 1967 Act introduced the offence of driving with excess alcohol. The power to require a suspect to provide a laboratory blood or urine sample, by which blood alcohol could be tested, was made dependent upon a complex step-by-step procedure. The . .
CitedFox v Chief Constable of Gwent HL 1986
The driver left an accident. The police entered his home unlawfully, and on his refusal to supply a breath test, he was arrested and charged with faiing to supply.
Held: A lawful arrest is not an essential requirement before a breath test, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.510004

Taylor v Regina: CACD 20 Dec 2013

The defendant appealed against his conviction, for sex offences some 33 years earlier, saying that the convictions had been unfairly obtained. Evidence had been available since 1980, but a decision not to prosecute had been taken.
Held: ‘the judge’s command of the evidence and the legal issues concerning the evidence with which he had to deal in his summing up was complete. He was fully entitled to expect, if the defence wished any particular disadvantage arising from the delay in prosecution to be drawn to the jury’s attention, that they would be listed for him for his consideration in advance of final speeches. This was not done. . . this was a masterly collection of the evidence and the issues that was calculated to provide the jury with optimum assistance while at the same time being scrupulously fair to the appellant.’ and ‘the judge’s decisions upon the admissibility of evidence and the summing up because a trial of this seriousness well over 30 years after the events which it concerned did, we are satisfied, raise important issues of fairness for consideration. At the conclusion of our examination of the grounds we are left with the firm conviction that the trial was fairly and properly conducted, that the verdicts of the jury were amply justified by the evidence, and that they are safe.’

Pitchford LJ, mitting J, Collier QC J
[2013] EWCA Crim 2398
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Derby Crown Court, ex parte Brooks QBD 1985
The court set out the characteristics of abuse of process in criminal matters. It may be an abuse of process if: ‘the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law . .
CitedRegina v Feltham Magistrate’s Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Feb-2001
The court considered how cases should be handled where video evidence of relevance to a defendant’s case had been destroyed, and the defendant asserted abuse of process.
Held: The discretion to stay proceedings should be employed only in . .
CitedRegina v Riat and Others CACD 11-Jul-2012
Five defendants appealed against their convictions after the admission of hearsay evidence.
Held: The court re-iterated that the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case remained a vital consideration when deciding upon its . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
CitedCrown Prosecuting Service v F CACD 21-Jul-2011
The Crown appealed against dismissal of historic sexual abuse charges for delay by the complainant.
Held: The justification for delay is relevant only to the extent that it bears upon the question whether a fair trial is no longer possible by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.519331

Regina v Owen; Regina v Stephen: CACD 11 Nov 1998

A recorded prisoner’s telephone call from prison was admissible in evidence without the defence having any right to challenge it, where the interceptor established a presumption of consent to the interception because of warnings given to prisoners.

Buxton LJ, Blofield J Tucker QC HHJ
Times 11-Nov-1998, [1999] 2 Cr App R 59, [1998] EWCA Crim 3142, [1999] 1 WLR 949
Bailii
Interception of Communications Act 1985 9
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.87504

Barnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Feb 2015

Admission of hearsay evidence

The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay.
Held: Fulford LJ said: ‘Although the court has a cardinal responsibility to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial, careful decisions need to be taken in situations of this kind if there is a real risk that a victim of domestic abuse may suffer further harm following her cooperation with the prosecuting authorities. Here, the prosecution was aware from the outset that M was frightened that providing a witness statement might provoke a violent reaction from the appellant. This was not a situation in which the prosecution was seeking to resort to unfair tactics in order to avoid introducing evidence that was potentially inconsistent with the case against the defendant, or because it simply anticipated that there was a risk the witness might give an untruthful account. The Crown’s stance was a seemingly sensible recognition of the potentially dangerous position in which M had been placed. Given these facts, it was appropriate to admit this res gestae evidence notwithstanding, in a strict sense, M was available as a witness, for instance if the court had issued a witness summons.’

Fulford LJ, Jay J
[2015] EWHC 232 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 39, Criminal Justice Act 2003 114 118, Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 34.2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedRegina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) CACD 8-May-2003
The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s wife. The prosecution considered she would not be a reliable witness, and did not call her. Other evidence being inadmissible, the defendant was acquitted. The AG appealed.
Held: There . .
CitedRegina v EED CACD 28-May-2010
A witness had been warned to attend court, but had not served with an order and did not attend. The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that her evidence should not have been read to the jury. He had faced allegations of sexual abuse of . .
CitedRegina v Riat and Others CACD 11-Jul-2012
Five defendants appealed against their convictions after the admission of hearsay evidence.
Held: The court re-iterated that the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case remained a vital consideration when deciding upon its . .

Cited by:
CitedMorgan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Dec-2016
Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted
The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.542307

Bhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others: Admn 3 Feb 2010

The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: There was a clear breach of section 16(5). The officers had followed the guidance, but that was itself incorrect. The police ‘argument is that since no complete assurance or guarantee of authenticity can be offered, there is no point in providing any. I do not accept that, and more importantly Parliament has not done so. It has stipulated what the householder should be told by way of assurance that the searchers have the authority they claim, and it has done so by requiring a copy of the warrant, not a copy of part only supplemented by further information provided by the executing officer, which is in essence what the current practice provides. Moreover, the fact that with an all premises warrant it will not necessarily be possible to satisfy the householder that the particular premises have been identified in the warrant does not invalidate the need to do so when the premises can be so identified.’
A copy of the warrant, including particulars of the premises to be searched must be supplied to the occupier as a mandatory requirement: ‘the wording of section 15(1) is plain and non-compliance renders entry, search and seizure unlawful. Whether or not the property can be admitted in a criminal trial raises quite separate issues. It depends upon whether the property is available to the prosecution at that time and admissibility will be determined in the normal way, subject to section 78 of PACE.’

Elias LJ, Calvert Smith J
[2010] EWHC 522 (Admin), (2010) 174 JP 213, [2011] 1 WLR 948
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 16(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Longman QBD 1988
Lord Lane CJ expressed reservations as to the construction of this provision: whether the consequence of a breach of section 15 or section 16 or both would render a search of premises under a warrant unlawful and he expressed the tentative view, . .
CitedRedknapp and Another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and Another Admn 23-May-2008
The claimant challenged the legality of a search warrant and the method of its execution on his home. He complained that the police had ensured publicity for the execution of the warrant.
Held: The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others QBD 1-Oct-1997
Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary ex parte Parker Admn 2-Jan-1993
There was a two paged document headed ‘warrant to enter and search premises’ which set out all the information required by section 15(6)(a). It did not, however, on its face identify the articles or persons to be sought in subparagraph (b). That . .
CitedFisher and Another v Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary CA 29-Jul-1997
The Chief Constable appealed against an award of pounds 750 made after a police officer serving a search warrant forgetfully failed to leave a copy with the occupier. . .
CitedRegina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley QBD 10-Nov-1999
When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .

Cited by:
CitedGlobal Cash and Carry Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Feb-2013
The claimant sought an order quashing a search warrant, and for damages. The officer had said that he had evidence that the claimants were storing an distributing from the premises large quantities of counterfeit goods and drugs.
Held: The . .
CitedMills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
See AlsoBhatti and Others v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2015
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law, saying that they had been based on evidence obtained by the police from credit reference agencies in breach of their rights under the 1984 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.403322

D and Others, Regina v: CACD 17 May 2011

Evidence of making indecent images admissible

Each defendant was convicted of offences of sexual abuse of children, in each case said to have been committed over a substantial period. Each of them denied any sexual contact with the children at all. In each case the judge admitted, under the bad character rules contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence that the defendant had viewed and/or made indecent photographs of children. The defendants contended that the judge was wrong to admit that evidence.
Held: The appeals failed: ‘we are satisfied that this evidence was admissible and properly admitted under gateway D. It is true that the making of the images found appears to have been in 2008 or thereabouts and that that was some years after the two complainants had ceased to live with the defendant and thus when any offences could have been committed. But a sexual interest in young children is a characteristic which is unlikely to change over years. The jury was entitled to find that this evidence tended to show that the complaints were not false but rather were made against a man who would indeed have had the sexual interest in these two children which they said he had.’

Hughes VP CACD LJ, Roderick Evans, Gloster DBE JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 1474, [2012] 1 Cr App R 8, [2013] 1 WLR 676, (2012) 176 JP 11, [2011] 4 All ER 568
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.562781

H, Regina v, (Criminal propensity): CACD 3 Dec 2009

Incomplete Information distorted jury’s picture

The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery saying that it was a named third party. The jury had been told of his own previous conviction for robbery, but not that the third party had also so been previously convicted. The jury had only been informed that the third party had a conviction for theft.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The limit on the evidence has distorted the picture given to the jury, and the appeal succeeded. Section 100 of the 2003 Act did preclude evidence of propensity or as to credibility of a non-defendant being admitted. However, Weir established that evidence relating to credibility was admissible under section 100. The same applied to evidence relating to propensity.

Lord Justice Moses, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart
[2009] EWCA Crim 2899, Times 23-Feb-2010, (2010) 174 JP 203
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Weir, Somanathan,Yaxley-Lennon, Manister, Qiang He and De Qun He CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendant objected to evidence being used as evidence of bad character against him under the 2003 Act, when it would not have been admissible as similar fact evidence under the old rules.
Held: Obiter dicta in O’Brien did not mean that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.406140

Petkar and Farquar, Regina v: CACD 16 Oct 2003

The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was incorrect, the judge having left open the inferences which might be drawn.
Held: The direction had not excluded other possible inferences, but this was insufficient in this case to support the appeal. However, the judge had failed to say that no inference should be drawn unless no explanation for the silence had been given. The defendants had given explanations. This amounted to a misdirection.
Rix LJ recalled that the Judicial Studies Board direction provided that the jury should be directed that ‘an inference should only be drawn if . . the prosecution’s case is `so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him”. This was a striking way to reflect the need identified in R v Cowan for there needed to be a case to answer.

Rix LJ, Douglas Brown J, Sir Richard Tucker
[2003] EWCA Crim 2668, [2004] 1 Cr App R 22
Bailii
Criminal Justice nd Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Jones and Jenkins CACD 6-Jun-2003
The two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. On the prosecution case it was joint enterprise; Jones’ case was that both had indeed attacked the victim, but had caused him only minor injuries and that the fatal injuries had been . .
CitedRegina v Cowan and Another CACD 12-Oct-1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof . .
CitedRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
CitedRegina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
CitedRamadan El-Delbi, Regina v CACD 20-Jun-2003
The court considered an appeal where the jury had been invited to draw an inference from the defendant’s silence at interview that the defendant ‘had not had a chance to prepare his story’ as being its equivalent.
Held: The court accepted the . .
CitedRegina v McGarry CACD 16-Jul-1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the . .
CitedRegina v Birchall CACD 20-Jan-1998
The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial
Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard . .
CitedRegina v Chenia CACD 1-Nov-2002
CS The defendant had made no comment replies during interview. He did not give evidence at trial, but otherwise took part, though he did not put any fact before the jury. The judge directed the jury that they . .
CitedRegina v Gill CACD 21-Jul-2000
When a defendant was silent, it was necessary for the court to be especially careful to give precise and accurate directions on the effect of such silence as to the drawing of adverse inferences. Having answered questions on some aspects, it was not . .
CitedRegina v JO CACD 9-Jun-2000
The defendant who was aged 16 gave a no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor. At trial he waived privilege and his solicitor gave evidence that he had given him before interview a very similar account of the incident to that which the . .
CitedRegina v Daly CACD 23-Nov-2001
CS Kennedy LJ: ‘we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to . .
CitedRegina v Prater CCA 1960
Where one defendant gave evidence incriminating his co-defendant, just as in cases where an accomplice gave evidence for the prosecution, a full corroboration warning was desirable. . .
CitedRegina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
CitedRegina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
CitedRegina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker CACD 24-Oct-2000
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
CitedNajib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
CitedBlack v Regina CACD 17-Jul-2020
Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference
The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.186823

Labinjo-Halcrow v Regina: CACD 28 Jul 2020

The issue in this appeal against conviction concerns non-defendant bad character evidence, and specifically, the direction given by the judge to the jury as to how they should regard it in relation to self-defence.

Macur LJ
[2020] EWCA Crim 951
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.668285

Wang Yam, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another: SC 16 Dec 2015

The appellant was to apply to the ECHR challenge the fairness of his trial because it was held partially in camera. The UK resisted this application. The appellant sought to be permitted in his response to disclose and refer to contents of the evidence given in camera. The Supreme Court was now asked whether the English courts had any discretionary power in any circumstances to refuse to permit the appellant to do this at this stage of the proceedings before the ECHR,
Held: The appeal failed. What was to be disclosed was first an issue for he ECHR which might make a request: ‘the inter-play between articles 34 and 38. The European Court of Human Rights has a central role in deciding what material should be disclosed to it: see especially the passages italicised in the quotations from the judgments in Janowiec and Al Nashiri set out in paras 29 and 32 above. A suggestion of breach of article 34 is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights to consider under article 38. It by no means follows that the court will always order disclosure, even of secret material which the alleged victim has never seen, and still less of in camera material which the alleged victim has seen and addressed. On the contrary, the European Court of Human Rights recognises the sensitivity of national security considerations, and the particular competence – one might add responsibility – of national authorities in handling material affecting national security or the safety of witnesses or others. Thus, in deciding whether to order that material withheld by governmental authorities from an alleged victim should be disclosed to it, the European Court of Human Rights will consider the independence and thoroughness of the domestic procedure for reviewing the authorities’ decision. It will consider in that light whether any and if so what further disclosure should be made. It will by no means necessarily conclude that any further disclosure was required.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 76, [2016] HRLR 3, [2015] WLR(D) 526, [2016] 2 WLR 19, [2016] 1 Cr App R 17, [2016] AC 771, UKSC 2015/0044
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 34 38
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoYam, Regina v CACD 28-Jan-2008
An order had been made for the trial of the defendant on a charge of murder to be held excluding both press and public. The Order had been made in the interests of national security and for the protection of the identity of a witness or other . .
Appeal fromYam, Regina (on The Application of) v Central Criminal Court and Another Admn 31-Oct-2014
The claimant had been convicted of murder after evidence was given in camera. He sought to apply to the ECHR challenging the fairness of the trial, arguing that he needed and shoudl be free to use the material given in camera.
Held: The . .
CitedSisojeva And Others v Latvia ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected. . .
CitedYam, Regina v CACD 28-Jan-2008
An order had been made for the trial of the defendant on a charge of murder to be held excluding both press and public. The Order had been made in the interests of national security and for the protection of the identity of a witness or other . .
CitedYam v Regina CACD 5-Oct-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that since part of the trial had been in camera the result was unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court addressed submissions advanced on his behalf indicating how substantially . .
CitedAl Nashiri v Poland (Chamber Judgment) ECHR 24-Jul-2014
. .
CitedFaraz v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2012
The defendant appealed from his convictions for possession and dissemination of terrorist related publications, saying that the judge should not have admitted evidence of the possession by named terrorist offenders of material similar or identical . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
CitedJanowiec And Others v Russia ECHR 21-Oct-2013
ECHR Grand Chamber – Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Positive obligations
Alleged failure adequately to account for fate of Polish prisoners executed by Soviet secret police at Katyn in 1940: no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Constitutional, Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.556981

Regina v E: CACD 26 Apr 2004

The court was asked as to the permissibility of admitting covert recordings of the accused’s car by investigating officers, which recorded the accused’s words as they spoke into their telephones. The defendants said that this amount to interception of the calls.
Held: If what happened was interception, evidence of the content of any telephone calls is rendered inadmissible by section 17(1)(a). However: ‘the natural meaning of the expression ‘interception’ denotes some inference or abstraction of the signal, whether it is passing along wires or by wireless telegraphy, during the process of transmission. The recording of a person’s voice, independently of the fact that at the time he is using a telephone, does not become interception simply because what he says goes not only go into the recorder, but, by separate process, is transmitted by a telecommunications system.’
RIPA should be construed, if possible, so as to comply with Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant Directives.

Rose VP CACD LJ, Hughes, Gloster JJ
Times 27-May-2004, [2004] EWCA Crim 1243, [2004] 1 WLR 3279, [2004] 2 Cr App R 29
Bailii
Criminal Procdures and Investigations Act 1996 35, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 29, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Directive 97/66, Police Act 1997 92
Citing:
CitedRegina v Effik; Regina v Mitchell HL 22-Jul-1994
The material obtained by intercepting signals passing between a base unit and the handset of a cordless telephone was admissible because no communication was being made by means of a public system when the calls were intercepted by the police. A . .

Cited by:
CitedEdmondson and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Course of Transmission includes Voicemails
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to intercept telephone voicemail messages whilst employed in various positions in newspapers. The issue boiled down to when the ‘course of transmission’ of a voicemail message ended, that is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, European, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.466413

Regina v Khan (Sultan): HL 2 Jul 1996

The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to his rights of privacy as enshrined in articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
Held: There is no right of privacy which is sufficient to justify the exclusion of evidence which had been obtained by electronic bugging of a private house.
Lord Nolan said: ‘the argument that the evidence of the taped conversation is inadmissible could only be sustained if two wholly new principles were formulated in our law. The first would be that the appellant enjoyed a right of privacy, in terms similar to those of article 8 of the Convention, in respect of the taped conversation. The second, which is different though related, is that evidence of the conversation obtained in breach of that right is inadmissible. The objection to the first of these propositions is that there is no such right of privacy in English law. The objection to the second is that even if there were such a right the decision of Your Lordships’ House in Reg. v. Sang and the many decisions which have followed it make it plain that as a matter of English law evidence which is obtained improperly or even unlawfully remains admissible, subject to the power of the trial judge to exclude it in the exercise of his common law discretion or under the provisions of section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Gazette 24-Jul-1996, Times 05-Jul-1996, [1997] AC 558, [1996] UKHL 14, [1996] 3 All ER 289, [1996] 3 WLR 162, (1996) 2 CHRLD 125, [1996] 2 Cr App R 440
Bailii
Interception of Communications Act 1985, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, European Convention on Human Rights 6 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Khan (Sultan) CACD 1-Jun-1994
An unlawful bug of a private conversation on private property, was nevertheless correctly admitted into evidence if it was not unfair to do so within the context of the trial. . .
CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
CitedMalone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in ‘accordance with law’. . .
CitedSchenk v Switzerland ECHR 12-Jul-1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
CitedRegina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .

Cited by:
ModifiedJones v University of Warwick CA 4-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be . .
Appealed toRegina v Khan (Sultan) CACD 1-Jun-1994
An unlawful bug of a private conversation on private property, was nevertheless correctly admitted into evidence if it was not unfair to do so within the context of the trial. . .
Appeal fromKhan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .
CitedWainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
CitedRegina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
CitedPublic Prosecution Service v McKee SC 22-May-2013
Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints
The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.87074

Regina v Effik; Regina v Mitchell: HL 22 Jul 1994

The material obtained by intercepting signals passing between a base unit and the handset of a cordless telephone was admissible because no communication was being made by means of a public system when the calls were intercepted by the police. A cordless phone in house was not ‘comprised in’ nor part of a public telecommunications system, and was not covered by the Act, and could be intercepted without warrant or authority. ‘Once again, one sees the emphasis on the duty of the person running the public system and the transmission through that system. . My Lords, in the light of these statutory provisions, I do not, for my part, entertain any doubt that the trial judge was right in concluding that the Geemarc cordless telephone used by Miss Sumer was a privately run system. The apparatus was clearly not ‘comprised in’ the public British Telecommunications system although it was connected to it by means of the socket at which, on the judges’ finding, that system ended. A communication through a telecommunication system consists of a series of electronic impulses and what was actually intercepted by the use of the police officers’ radio receiver consisted of the impulses transmitted between the base unit and the handset, both of which formed part of a telecommunication system ‘run’ by Miss Sumer (Act of 1983, section 4(2)) but formed no part of the public telecommunication system run by British Telecommunications.’

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Gazette 26-Oct-1994, Independent 29-Jul-1994, Times 22-Jul-1994, [1995] AC 1309
Interception of Communications Act 1985 1 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Effik; Same v Micthell CACD 23-Mar-1992
The police had unlawfully intercepted telephone calls made by the defendant.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted notwithstanding its unlawful origins. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toRegina v Effik; Same v Micthell CACD 23-Mar-1992
The police had unlawfully intercepted telephone calls made by the defendant.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted notwithstanding its unlawful origins. . .
CitedRegina v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo CACD 6-Apr-2001
The authorities intercepted telephone conversations on card phones used by prisoners with people outside the prison. Was the intercepted material admissible? Was it a ‘communication in the course of its transmission . . by means of a public . .
CitedW, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .
CitedRegina v E CACD 26-Apr-2004
The court was asked as to the permissibility of admitting covert recordings of the accused’s car by investigating officers, which recorded the accused’s words as they spoke into their telephones. The defendants said that this amount to interception . .
CitedEdmondson and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Course of Transmission includes Voicemails
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to intercept telephone voicemail messages whilst employed in various positions in newspapers. The issue boiled down to when the ‘course of transmission’ of a voicemail message ended, that is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.86626

Atkins and Another v Regina: CACD 2 Oct 2009

The court considered the use in evidence of facial photograph comparison techniques. The expert had given an opinion that the comparison gave support to a conclusion that the photograph in issue was of the defendant, but there was no database showing any statistical basis for the suggestion. The defendant said that the use of the expressions of level of support in the form of an ascending scale carries the risk of bestowing upon evidence which is purely subjective a spurious scientific authority.
Held: Evidence based on facial recognition has been repeatedly accepted. Such a sliding scale must be used only with caution: ‘it does not have a scientific basis, in the sense of an arithmetical or numerical scale; it is simply a convenient means of expressing a conclusion.’ However ‘the fact that a conclusion is not based upon a statistical database recording the incidence of the features compared as they appear in the population at large needs to be made crystal clear to the jury. But we do not agree that the absence of such a database means that no opinion can be expressed by the witness beyond rehearsing his examination of the photographs. An expert who spends years studying this kind of comparison can properly form a judgment as to the significance of what he has found in any particular case. It is a judgment based on his experience. A jury is entitled to be informed of his assessment. The alternative, of simply leaving the jury to make up its own mind about the similarities and dissimilarities, with no assistance at all about their significance, would be to give the jury raw material with no means of evaluating it. It would be as likely to result in over-valuation of the evidence as under-valuation. It would be more, not less, likely to result in an unsafe conclusion than providing the jury with the expert’s opinion, properly debated through cross-examination and, if not shared by another expert, countered by contrary evidence.’ Disallowing such a sliding scale would also leave a defendant less scope to challenge the evidence.
‘there can be proper anxiety about new areas of expertise. Courts need to be scrupulous to ensure that evidence proffered as expert, for any party, is indeed based upon specialised experience, knowledge or study. Mere self-certification, without demonstration of study, method and expertise, is by itself not sufficient. It sometimes happens that such anxieties are reinforced when experts overstate their case, as the experts under consideration in both Gray and Tang appear to have done. But the remedy is not to prevent all experts, good and bad, from expressing any informed opinion at all as to the import of their findings. The three principal remedies are (i) to have such evidence examined and, if appropriate, criticised by an expert of equal experience and skill, (ii) to subject the evidence to rigorous testing in the witness box and (iii) to ensure careful judicial exposition to the jury of the difference between factual examination/comparison or arithmetical measure on the one hand and, on the other, a subjective, but informed, judgment of the significance of the findings.’

Hughes LJ, Rafferty J, Slade J
[2009] EWCA Crim 1876
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Clarke CACD 30-Jan-1995
There were no special rules for the admission of evidence by computerised facial mapping. The ultimate gatekeepers on the admission of evidence of previous convictions are the rules on similar fact evidence. . .
CitedRegina v Gray CACD 2003
Mitting J discussed the use of facial mapping expert evidence: ‘We do not however wish to pass from this appeal without making general observations about the use of facial imaging and mapping expert evidence of a reliable kind. Mr Harrow, like some . .
CitedRegina v Stockwell CA 5-Apr-1993
Expert evidence of facial comparison was admissible if the information and assessment are not otherwise available to the jury. As to Turner: ‘It is to be noted that Lawton LJ there referred to a jury forming their own conclusions ‘without help’. . .
CitedRegina v Hien Puoc Tang 24-May-2006
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Criminal Appeal) CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude Evidence – whether opinion evidence of identity based on facial mapping and . .
CitedRegina v Hookway CACD 1-Feb-1999
The defendant appealed against his conviction based on expert facial mapping evidence.
Held: Such evidence might stand on its own, and had been properly left before the jury. . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) CACD 7-Oct-2002
The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not . .
BindingRegina v Gardner CACD 28-Jun-2004
The court affirmed the general admissibility of expert facial comparison evidence, and said: ‘There is no rule . . that in a case such as the present an expert witness cannot go further than saying ‘there are the following similarities’ leaving the . .
CitedRegina v Ciantar CACD 2005
The court considered a case in which there was admited expert evidence using posture to identify the defendant. . .
CitedRegina v Luttrell; Regina v Dawson; Regina v Hamberger CACD 28-May-2004
The defendants appealed saying the court had wrongly admitted the evidence of a lip reader.
Held: Lip-reading was a recognised skill, and provided the judge gave appropriate warnings to a jury, recognising the possibility that evidence may not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.375561

Regina v EED: CACD 28 May 2010

A witness had been warned to attend court, but had not served with an order and did not attend. The defendant appealed against his conviction saying that her evidence should not have been read to the jury. He had faced allegations of sexual abuse of his wife’s younger sisters. Two gave evidence, but the third did not attend. Her evidence was presented as hearsay to rebut the defendant’s allegation of recent concoction.
Held: The appeal failed. The trial judge is the gatekeeper responsible for the fairness of the trial, and the examination of the factors set out in section 114(2) and any other relevant factors must be performed with caution when the object is to fill a gap caused by the non-attendance of a live witness on grounds which do not fall within section 116. Though the evidence was not entirely difficult for the defendant, it was prejudicial. The judge had failed to analyse whether the prosecution was at fault in not requiring her attendance. It should not have been admitted. Nevertheless, ‘as the evidence emerged, the appellant was in hardly a worse position than he would have been if the statement had not been admitted. On the contrary, he was now in a position to construct an argument, without having to put that argument to the witness that the reason why the statements differed, was because there had indeed been collaboration between LT and ML as alleged.’ A consideration of the issue of the truthfulness of the hearsay evidence was largely subsumed in the jury’s principal task of which it was reminded by the judge time and again, namely to judge the truthfulness of the complainants themselves . . the jury that they believed all four women.

Pitchford, Rafferty LJJ, Goldstone QC J
[2010] EWCA Crim 1213, (2010) 174 JP 289, [2010] Crim LR 862
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedO’Hare, Regina v CACD 7-Sep-2006
Scott Baker LJ said that: ‘We think it is important to point out that, as a matter of generality, section 114 cannot and should not be applied so as to render section 116 nugatory.
But section 114(1)(d) should not be so narrowly applied that it . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Adams CACD 23-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction after the court had allowed a prosecution witness’ statement to be read. The witness did not attend, only being notified in the last few working days before the hearing.
Held: Though the defendant’s appeal . .
CitedMusone v Regina CACD 23-May-2007
A serving prisoner was stabbed to death in his cell. The appellant admitted that he had punched the victim twice but maintained that another man had stabbed him, which explained the incriminating presence of the victim’s blood in the vicinity of the . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
CitedRL v Regina (Evidence of wife) CACD 7-May-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault on his daughter. Whilst he was in custody, the police approached his wife and took a statement from her which was used in evidence. The defendant complained that since they had not . .
CitedSak v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 13-Nov-2007
Whether the court had been correct to allow hearsay evidence from a doctor who had attended the defendant in the police cells but who had not attended court. . .
CitedRegina v Adams CACD 23-Nov-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction after the court had allowed a prosecution witness’ statement to be read. The witness did not attend, only being notified in the last few working days before the hearing.
Held: Though the defendant’s appeal . .

Cited by:
CitedBarnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2015
Admission of hearsay evidence
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay.
Held: Fulford LJ said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.416167

Regina v Williams (John): QBD 7 Oct 1994

A Police Constable’s fleeting view of a Defendant could be sufficient identification, subject to checks in court. However a Turnbull warning as to the need for corroboration may not always be necessary. The ‘striking similarity’ or ‘signature’ test would continue to apply in all cases where identification was in issue, but even where identity is an issue, the degree of similarity required will vary according to the other evidence in the case. The court extracted from the Turnbull a test which it stated in the context of a case of identity as follows: ‘Evidence tending to show that a defendant has committed an offence charged in count A may be used to reach a verdict on count B and vice versa, if the circumstances of both offences (as the jury would be entitled to find them) are such as to provide sufficient probative support for the conclusion that the defendant committed both offences, and it would therefore be fair for the evidence to be used in this way notwithstanding the prejudicial effect of so doing. To decide whether the evidence provides sufficient probative support so that it is fair to use it in this way, may require careful analysis and trial judges would be wise to seek the support of counsel before closing speeches are made, if not before.

Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994, Times 07-Oct-1994, [1998] 2 Crim App R 289, [1995] Cr App R 415
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Turnbull (Launcelot) CACD 1977
. .
ApprovedRegina v Kane 1965
The court considered whether a private club was a public place. The defendants were charged with making an affray in a public place. The events had taken place in a member’s club. The practice at the club was that people were signed in without being . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Venn CACD 1-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed convictions for sexual assault against four young girls.
Held: The admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence depends upon the degree of its relevance. If only suggests propensity it is inadmissible. If it goes further and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.88320

Regina v Lambert: HL 5 Jul 2001

Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof

The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was heard before the 1998 Act came into effect. The issue was whether on his appeal after the Act, the Act could be applied.
Held: (Lord Steyn dissenting) ‘a legislative interference with the presumption of innocence requires justification and must not be greater than is necessary.’ There is an objective justification for some interference with the burden of proof in prosecutions under section 5. A reverse legal burden was disproportionate to address the legislative goal of easing the task of the prosecution in cases under section 5(3). The burden on the defendant should be interpreted as an evidential burden only.
The general presumption was that an Act was not retrospective in effect, and there was nothing to say Parliament so intended for the 1998 Act. Although the burden imposed by the 1971 Act might be contrary to the Human Rights Act, since the 1998 Act was not to be applied to statutes retrospectively, this appeal failed.
Lord Hope of Craighead said: ‘I would therefore answer the question whether an accused whose trial took place before the coming into force of the 1998 Act is entitled to rely in an appeal after the coming into force of that Act on an alleged breach of his Convention rights by the trial court in the negative’;
Lord Clyde said: ‘In my view the intention is that section 22 (4) should not extend to the other kind of ‘legal proceedings’ mentioned in section 7(6), namely an appeal. I am not persuaded that section 22(4) can avail the appellant’;
Lord Hutton said: ‘Section 7(6) provides: ‘In subsection (1)(b) ‘legal proceedings’ includes-(a) proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and (b) an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal’. The subsection therefore distinguishes between ‘proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority’ and ‘an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal’. Accordingly when section 22(4) refers, in identical words to the words of section 7(6)(a), to ‘proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority’, the retrospective operation permitted by that subsection does not apply to an appeal against the decision of the Crown Court in this case’

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Times 06-Jul-2001, Gazette 31-Aug-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 206, [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] 2 Cr App R 28, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001] 3 All ER 577
Bailii, House of Lords
Human Rights Act 1998, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 5 28(2) 28(3)(b)(i)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan CACD 14-Sep-2000
Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
CitedWilson v First County Trust Ltd (1) CA 3-Nov-2000
The administrative charges for entering into a loan were not to be included in the loan, but rather as an item entering into the total charge for credit. To hold otherwise went against accounting practice, would disguise the cost of the loan, and . .
CitedSalabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
CitedSalmon and Moore v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Nov-1998
The court considered the burden of proof placed on the prosecution under s28 of the 1971 Act.
Held: ‘Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 28 are both designed to come into play at a stage when the Crown have proved all that they need to prove in . .
CitedRegina v McNamara CACD 1988
In order to establish possession of a controlled drug the Crown merely had to prove that the appellant had the bag in his possession and that the bag in fact contained a controlled drug, in this case cocaine. Thereafter the burden was cast upon the . .
CitedWallbank and Wallbank v Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote With Billesley, Warwickshire CA 17-May-2001
The defendant owned land subject to an inclosure award of 1743, in exchange for other land which had made the owner a lay rector. The land was subject to the burden of a duty to maintain the chancel of the parish church. The defendants had been . .
CitedWoolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-May-1935
Golden Thread of British Justice – Proof of Intent
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. She had left him and returned to live with her mother. He went to the house. He said he intended to frighten her that he would kill himself if she did not return. He wired a shotgun to . .
CitedRegina v Edwards 1975
On a charge of selling intoxicating liquor without a justices’ licence, it is not for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had no licence but for the defendant to prove that he had. The burden of establishing a statutory exemption by way of a . .
CitedRegina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987
The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
CitedState v Coetzee 1997
(South African Constitutional Court) The court explained the significance of the presumption of innocence: ‘There is a paradox at the heart of all criminal procedure in that the more serious the crime and the greater the public interest in securing . .
CitedRegina v Whyte 1988
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court rejected an argument that as a matter of principle a constitutional presumption of innocence only applies to elements of the offence and not excuses: ‘The real concern is not whether the accused must disprove an . .
CitedRegina v Duncan CACD 1981
Where a defendant has not given evidence the whole of a ‘mixed’ statement, one which includes matter which is incriminating and also matter which is exculpatory, should be admitted in evidence, if it is to be admitted at all. Nevertheless, the court . .
CitedRegina v Sharp (Colin) HL 1988
The defendant had been seen fleeing the area of a crime. Some days later he volunteered a statement admitting his presence in the area, but providing an innocent explanation. He did not give evidence at trial. His statement was put in by the . .
CitedRegina v Aziz; Regina v Tosun; Regina v Yorganci HL 16-Jun-1995
The defendant (one of three) relied upon his part exculpatory statement made in interview and did not give evidence. The judge said that his good character was relevant as to his own propensity, and the character of the others was relevant to their . .
CitedWarner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1968
The appellant had been convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1964 Act, of having been found in possession of drugs.
Held: (Reid dissenting) The prosecution had only to prove that the accused knew of the existence of the thing . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedSweet v Parsley HL 23-Jan-1969
Mens Rea essential element of statutory Offence
The appellant had been convicted under the Act 1965 of having been concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis. This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. The prosecutor had conceded that she was unaware that the . .

Cited by:
AppliedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedThe Home Office v Wainwright and Wainwright CA 20-Dec-2001
The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the . .
CitedRegina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
CitedRegina v Johnstone, etc CACD 1-Feb-2002
The several defendants appealed convictions for breaches of section 92 of the Act.
Held: The section presumed that a civil infringement of the Trade Mark had taken place. Accordingly any of the defences available to a civil action must be . .
AppliedRegina v Daniel CACD 22-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
Held: The conviction . .
CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedBarnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills QBD 7-Mar-2003
The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 CACD 21-Mar-2003
The defendant had been tried for an offence under the Act of being a member of a proscribed organisation, and professing membership of Hamas. At trial the crown accepted an evidential burden, that the offence had to be read down to comply with the . .
Appealed toRegina v Lambert; Regina v Ali; Regina v Jordan CACD 14-Sep-2000
Each defendant was charged under a statute which provided a defence if they could prove a certain element. They complained that this was a breach of their human rights. The complaint was rejected. It would be wrong to impose a burden of proof on a . .
AppliedRegina v Matthews CACD 25-Mar-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for carrying a bladed article in public, on the basis that the Act transferred to him the onus of establishing the statutory defence.
Held: There were four steps to be applied in assessing the case. Was . .
CitedRegina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
CitedLynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Nov-2001
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
CitedSmith (Wallace Duncan), Regina v (No 4) CACD 17-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed convictions for fraudulent trading and obtaining property by deception, saying that the English court could not prosecute an offence committed principally in the US.
Held: Provided some substantial element (here the . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedDowsett v Criminal Cases Review Commission Admn 8-Jun-2007
The claimant had been convicted in 1993 of involvement in a murder. He had complained that the police had failed to disclose material which would have been of assistance to him. He had requested the Commission to take examine and pursue his appeal. . .
CitedIn re F (A Child) (Placement Order); C v East Sussex County Council (Adoption) CA 1-May-2008
The father sought to revoke a freeing order. He said that the social workers had conspired to exclude him from the process. The child was born of a casual relationship, and at first he was unaware of the proceedings. On learning of them he sought to . .
CitedJuncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
CitedChargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wright; Regina (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court Admn 4-Feb-2009
The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and . .
CitedPearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
CitedWebster v Regina CACD 1-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 1889 Act for making a corrupt gift to a local government officer. He said that the 1916 Act placed an unfair burden on him to prove that the gift was not corruptly given.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedMcCaughey and Another, Re Application forJudicial Review SC 18-May-2011
The claimants sought a fuller inquest into deaths at the hands of the British Army in 1990 in Northern Ireland. On opening the inquest, the coroner had declined to undertake to hold a hearing compliant with article 2, and it had not made progress. . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedShepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.88525

Charles, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009

The court was asked whether the legal burden of proving whether a defendant acted without reasonable excuse in breach of an Anti-social Behaviour Order rests upon the Crown or the defence.
Held: It was for the prosecution to establish that the defendant had acted without a reasonable excuse when acting in breach of the ASBO. The judge had acted without being advised of the JSB guide which stated that if the defendant raised the evidential issue of reasonable excuse, it was for the prosecution to prove lack of reasonable excuse.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Wilkie and Mrs Justice Dobbs
[2009] EWCA Crim 1570, Times 25-Aug-2009, (2009) 173 JP 481, [2010] 1 Cr App R 2
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(10)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Richards CACD 10-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for breach of a non-molestation order. He said that the prosecutor should have had the burden of proving that he had no lawful excuse for the acts complained of. He was said to have gone to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.365621

Gjoni v Regina: CACD 9 Apr 2014

The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, raising an issue as to the proper approach to a judgment whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of the complainant relating to a ‘relevant issue in the case’ within the meaning of section 41(2) of the 1999 Act. The appellant argued that the trial judge’s ruling deprived him of a fair trial. It had the effect of curtailing the evidence of the appellant relevant to his defence of honest and reasonable belief in the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse.
Held: The appeal failed. The evidence had been correctly excluded: ‘we do not consider that the admission of the full content of these conversations would have improved the appellant’s standing in the eyes of the jury or, more particularly, that it was necessary to admit the evidence to avoid an unsafe conclusion by the jury. The fact that Lee told the appellant he had had sexual intercourse with the complainant on a previous occasion cannot have amounted to any justification for a belief held by the appellant that she would consent to sexual intercourse with him when she had explicitly rejected him. Furthermore, the line of reasoning required was exactly that prohibited by section 41(4): that a woman who consents to intercourse with one comparative stranger will, a week later, and in different circumstances, consent to have intercourse with another.

Pitchford LJ, Coulson, Spencer JJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 691
Bailii
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
CitedBahador, Regina v CACD 15-Feb-2005
The appellant was charged with pre-2003 Act sexual offences. He wished to give evidence that he honestly believed the complainant was consenting to sexual activity with him because, earlier on the same evening, he had observed her behaving in a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523633

Mehmedov v Regina: CACD 18 Jul 2014

The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his partner. He said that the court should have accepted his plea under section 54 of the 2009 Act, having wrongly admitted as evidence his previous covictions in Bulgaria at a time when, he said, people of his racial descent were regularly wrongly convicted.

Pitchford LJ, Openshaw J, Melbourne Inman QC
[2014] EWCA Crim 1523
Bailii
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 54, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 73
England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.534639

Sliogeris v Regina: CACD 30 Jan 2015

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained as to the admission of some additional evidence from one of the co-defendants.
Held: The appeal failed. Although some of the judge’s analysis was incorrect: ‘We recognise that a court will not readily admit an out of court statement by one defendant as evidence against another. But in our view a critical feature of this case, as the judge recognised, is that the application was made by a co-defendant who sought to have the evidence admitted in support of his case. Staponka was saying, by implication, that the appellant was responsible for the attack, and this was potentially important evidence in support of his case. Notwithstanding the errors in the way the judge dealt with paragraphs (e) and (f), it is clear in our view that the judge did believe that the evidence was potentially reliable and after a very careful consideration of all relevant matters, he came to the conclusion that the evidence should be admitted. In our judgment that was a cogent and proper conclusion properly available to him. The case of McLean indicates that once evidence is in under section 114 it is in for all purposes.’

Elias LJ, William Davis J, Batty QC HHJ Rec of Carisle
[2015] EWCA Crim 22
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76A
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.542022

Regina v Turnbull and Another etc: CCA 9 Jun 1976

The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance upon the correctness of identification. No special form of words need be used. The jury should examine closely the circumstances of the identification. Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger, but mistakes can still be made.
Lord Widgery discussed the direction about alibi evidence: ‘Care should be taken by the judge when directing the jury about the support for an identification which may be derived from the fact that they have rejected an alibi. False alibis may be put forward for many reasons: an accused, for example, who has only his own truthful evidence to rely on may stupidly fabricate an alibi and get lying witnesses to support it out of fear that his own evidence will not be enough. Further, alibi witnesses can make genuine mistakes about dates and occasions like any other witnesses can. It is only when the jury is satisfied that the sole reason for the fabrication was to deceive them and there is no other explanation for its being put forward, that fabrication can provide any support for identification evidence. The jury should be reminded that proving the accused has told lies about where he was at the material time does not by itself prove that he was where the identifying witness says he was.’
Lord Widgery continued: ‘In our judgment the dangers of miscarriage of justice occurring can be much reduced if trial judges sum up to juries in the way indicated in this judgment. First, whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken, the Judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications. In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such a warning and should make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken. Provided this is done in clear terms the Judge need not use any particular form of words. Secondly, the judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. How long did the witness have the accused under observation? At what distance? In what light? Was the observation impeded in any way, as for example by passing traffic or a press of people? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused? How long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police? Was there any material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance? If in any case, whether it is being dealt with summarily or on indictment, the prosecution have reason to believe that there is such a material discrepancy they should supply the accused or his legal advisers with particulars of the description the police were first given. In all cases if the accused asks to be given particulars of such descriptions, the prosecution should supply them. Finally, he should remind the jury of any specific weaknesses which had appeared in the identification evidence.’

‘Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. All these matters go to the quality of the identification evidence. If the quality is good and remains good at the close of the accused’s case, the danger of a mistaken identification is lessened, but the poorer the quality, the greater the danger . . When, in the judgment of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the situation is very different. The judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification. This may be corroboration in the sense lawyers use that word; but it need not be so if its effect is to make the jury sure that there has been no mistaken identification: for example, X sees the accused snatch a woman’s handbag; he gets only a fleeting glance of the thief’s face as he runs off but he does see him entering a nearby house. Later he picks out the accused on an identity parade. If there was no more evidence than this, the poor quality of the identification would require the judge to withdraw the case from the jury; but this would not be so if there was evidence that the house into which the accused was alleged by X to have run was his father’s . . In our judgment odd coincidences can, if unexplained, be supporting evidence. The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable of supporting the evidence of identification. If there is any evidence or circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the judge should say so.’

Widgery LCJ, Roskill and Lawton L.JJ., Cusack and May JJ
[1976] 3 WLR 445, [1977] QB 224, (1976) 63 CAR 132, [1976] 3 All ER 549
lip
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Long CACD 1973
The accused, who was charged with robbery, had been identified by three witnesses in different places on different occasions but each had only a momentary opportunity for observation. Immediately after the robbery the accused had left his home and . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Charles CACD 19-Jul-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for robbery, disputing the admission of police and identification evidence. There had been several failures to comply with the codes of practice, including the failure to hold an identity parade when so requested, . .
CitedDean Cedeno v Kenwin Logan PC 18-Dec-2000
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for larceny, based on identification evidence. He said that the magistrate had failed to give proper weight to the need, pace Turnbull, to be careful in accepting identification . .
CitedLeslie Tiwari v The State (Appeal No 76 of 2001) PC 29-May-2002
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed convictions for rape and other offences based upon identification evidence. He had not been represented at the trial. He had not been warned of his freedom to call witnesses.
Held: Where a defendant . .
CitedBarry George v Regina CACD 29-Jul-2002
There had been an identification parade, but the witness had not made an unqualified identification of the defendant. He now appealed admission of the evidence from ID parade.
Held: Recognising the difficulties in identification evidence, and . .
CitedPratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica and Another PC 2-Nov-1993
(Jamaica) A five year delay in execution is excessive, and can itself amount to inhuman or degrading punishment. ‘There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for many years. . .
CitedBertrand Roberts and Roland Roberts v The State PC 15-Jan-2003
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellants had been convicted of murder and their capital sentences commuted. They now sought to challenge the convictions as to the admission of and directions given on the . .
CitedRegina v Haynes CACD 2-Feb-2004
In a difficult case, the judge asked for the assistance of counsel in the absence of the jury, but declined assistance in connection with his proposed Turnbull direction. That direction was then said to be defective.
Held: A wise judge makes . .
AppliedRegina v Stanton CACD 10-Mar-2004
In the course of the defendant’s trial issues of identification arose. The defendant appealed.
Held: The judge failed to draw to the attention of the jury any specific weaknesses in the identification evidence as required in Turnbull. It was a . .
CitedDavies v Regina CACD 29-Oct-2004
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said the identification was partial and weak, being of a partial face and two spoken words. It was objected that his counsel had wrongly failed to object to its admission.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Flemming CACD 1986
It was quite unnecessary for a trial judge faced with issues about the quality or probative value of identification evidence to hold a trial-within-a-trial. The normal procedure was that laid down in Turnbull, where the court ‘made it abundantly . .
CitedRegina v Bentley CACD 1991
Where an identification depends upon the recognition by the witness of a person or persons previously known to him, the jury should be reminded that there is remains a risk for mistake in such cases. Many people have experienced thinking that they . .
CitedFuller v State 1995
(Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) The court gave guidance on the need to give proper directions on identification evidence to accord with Turnbull: ‘We are concerned about the repeated failures of trial judges to instruct juries properly on . .
CitedAurelio Pop v The Queen PC 22-May-2003
PC (Belize) A witness identified the accused only making the link between the man he knew as R and the accused as the result of an improper leading question by prosecuting counsel. There had been no . .
CitedLangford and Another v The State PC 11-May-2005
(Dominica) The appellants appealed convictions for together having kicked a man to death. They said the convictions were founded on unreliable identification evidence.
Held: The judge had made several misdirections, as to the reliability of . .
CitedRegina v Thornton CACD 2-Jun-1994
A judge is to give the jury a full Turnbull warning on identification evidence if identity is disputed. The defendant was at the scene, but denied his involvement. . .
CitedDelroy Ricketts v The Queen PC 15-Dec-1997
(Jamaica) Special leave was granted to the defendant to appeal his conviction for murder. Counsel had been late for his trial, and the jury empanelled. When counsel arrived he said the defendant had not understood the judge. A trial took place as to . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Uddin Admn 8-Jun-2006
Prosecutor’s appeal by case stated against dismissal of charge of taking vehicle without the owner’s consent. Officer’s fleeting sight of defendant who was known to him driving. . .
CitedGaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
CitedLabastide and Carty, Regina v CACD 19-Nov-2008
The defendants appealed their conviction for murder. They were said to have been members of a gang, and were present and armed and part of the joint enterprise leading to the murder. The convictions were based on identification evidence from . .
CitedPhipps v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another PC 27-Jun-2012
phipps_dppPC2012
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that he had been prejudiced because the jury were told that he had been produced from custody, and one of his witnesses was produced in court in chains, thus . .
CitedAdeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .
CitedWeir and Another, Regina v CANI 14-Jan-2013
Renewed application for leave to appeal against convictions for robbery. The defendant complained as to the unreliability of identification evidence, and as to a note passed by the jury to the judge indicating the use by the jury of the specialist . .
CitedRegina v Holmes CACD 14-Mar-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual and common assault. He objected as to the use of bad character evidence, and the rejection of his no case to answer submission. The evidence was primarily by identification where the . .
DistinguishedRegina v Browning CACD 1991
A witness by the name of Hughes said that he was overtaken at considerable speed by a Renault 25 with a registration number beginning C7.
Held: The peculiar risks of mistaken facial identification do not apply to the same extent to evidence of . .
DsitinguishedHampton and Another v The Crown CACD 30-Jul-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. Evidence had been admitted as to the identification of a car from a memory of the registration mark by a witness.
Held: The evidence was properly admitted without a Turnbull . .
CitedThe Queen v Crawford PC 11-Nov-2015
From the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands – The crown appealed against the quashing of the respondent’s conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm. A gun was found where he had been seen to discard a gun whilst being chased. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.174045

Weir and Another, Regina v: CANI 14 Jan 2013

Renewed application for leave to appeal against convictions for robbery. The defendant complained as to the unreliability of identification evidence, and as to a note passed by the jury to the judge indicating the use by the jury of the specialist forensic knowledge of a member.
Held: Leave was refused. There was no error as to the directions given by the judge on identification, and his response to the note had been practical, and he had invited counsel’s submissions.

Higgins, Girvan, Coghlin LJJ
[2013] NICA 3
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedRegina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471885

Regina v Seton: CACD 12 Mar 2010

The defendant had been charged with murder. He served a late defence statement blaming the murder on a man called P who was already serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. P refused to respond to police enquiries of him, but in telephone calls he made abundantly clear to members of his family his indignation towards the false allegation. Having considered all the relevant section 114(2) factors the judge permitted the prosecution to adduce in evidence recordings of P’s telephone conversations. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had carried out a full analysis of the interests of justice and also the prosecution case against the defence was otherwise a powerful one.

Stanley Burnton LJ, Collins and Davis JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 450, (2010) 174 JP 241
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAdeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.406575

Regina v William Baldry: 1852

A police constable, who apprehended a man on a charge of murder, having told him the nature of the charge aganist him, said ‘he need not say any thing to criminate himself – what he did say would he taken down, and used as evidence against him.’ The prisoner, thereupon, made a confession. Held, that the confession was rightly admitted in evidence. It is not that the law presumes a confession obtained by duress or by promise to be untrue, but from the danger of receiving such evidence judges have thought it better to reject it for the due administration of justice.
Parke B said: ‘by the law of England, in order to render a confession admissible in evidence, it must be perfectly voluntary and there is no doubt that any inducement in the nature of a promise or of a threat held out by a person in authority vitiates a confession. The decisions to that effect have gone a long way: whether it would not have been better to have allowed the whole to go to the jury it is now too late to inquire, but I think there has been too much tenderness towards prisoners in this matter. I confess that I cannot look at the decisions without some shame, when I consider what objections have prevailed to prevent the reception of confessions in evidence . . justice and commonsense have too frequently been sacrificed at the shrine of mercy’

Parke B and Lord Campbell CJ
(1852) 2 Den CC Res 430, (1852) 2 Den CC 430, [1852] EngR 63, (1852) 2 Den 430, (1852) 169 ER 568
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIbrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Police

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.295186

Newell, Regina v: CACD 30 Mar 2012

The appellant challenged the introduction in evidence of a previous inconsistent statement lodged on his behalf by counsel on a Plea and Case Management Form at a directions hearing.
Held: The appeal was allowed. An advocate plainly has implied actual authority to do what is normally incidental, in the ordinary course of his profession, to the execution of the advocate’s express authority. However, the position should be, provided the case is conducted in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Criminal Procedure Rules, that information or a statement written on a PCMH Form should in the exercise of the court’s discretion under section 78 not be admitted in evidence as a statement that can be used against the defendant. The information is provided to assist the court. Experience has shown that, unless the position is clear, the proper administration of justice is hampered. There may of course be cases where it would be right not to exercise the discretion but to admit such statements. Those circumstances are fact-specific, but an example is a case where there was no defence statement, despite the judge asking for one to be provided, and an ambush attempted inconsistent with what was stated on the PCMH Form.

Rose LJ, Dobbs, Underhill JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 650
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 118(2), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Turner (Bryan) CACD 1975
The court was asked whether what a defendant’s counsel had said in a plea in mitigation in one case could be proved and admitted as evidence in another trial. The objection was made that the evidence could not go before the jury until the . .
CitedFirth v Epping Magistrates Court Admn 3-Feb-2011
The defendant had faced a charge of assault in the Magistrates Court and had pleaded not guilty. She had indicated in the ‘trial issues’ form through her lawyer that her defence was self defence. The prosecutor then indicated that the charge was to . .
CitedRegina v Hayes CACD 2004
The court was asked to consider whether a letter written by the appellant’s solicitor admitting the appellant had inflicted injury could be admitted as a previous inconsistent statement at the trial when he denied causing the injury.
Held: It . .
CitedWaugh v H B Clifford and Sons CA 1982
The plaintiffs initially sued Clifford, a building company, in contract and tort, seeking damages arising from defective building work in the erection of semi-detached dwelling houses on land they had acquired from Clifford. Both parties retained . .
CitedPenner, Regina v CACD 5-May-2010
The combination of the 1996 Act and the Criminal Procedure Rules had or at least were designed to abolish what was known as trial by ambush. . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Legal Professions

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.452375

Ratten v The Queen: PC 1 Jul 1971

Res Gestae to admit circumstances of complaint

(Victoria) Evidence had been admitted under the res gestae rule, that a woman making a telephone call was in a hysterical state.
Held: It was properly used. Where a statement is made either by the victim of an attack or by a bystander, which is itself hearsay, but indicates directly or indirectly the identity of the attacker, the admissibility of that statement is dependent on whether it was made as part of the res gestae (all facts so connected with a fact in issue as to introduce it, explain its nature, or form in connection with it one continuous transaction). The two difficulties with such evidence are that it may be concocted, and the exactness of the words may not be sure. The possibility of concoction is the real test of admissibility.
Lord Wilberforce said: ‘Words spoken are facts just as much as any other action by a human being. If the speaking of the words is a relevant fact, a witness may give evidence that they were spoken. A question of hearsay only arises when the words spoken are relied on ‘testimonially,’ i.e. as establishing some fact narrated by the words. Authority is hardly needed for this proposition . . ‘ and ‘It is difficult to imagine a case where there is no evidence at all of connection between statement and principal event other than the statement itself, but whether this is sufficiently shown must be a matter for the trial judge.’

Wilberforce, Reid, Hodson, Diplock, Cross of Chelsea LL
[1972] 2 AC 378, [1971] UKPC 23, [1971] 3 All ER 801, (1972) 56 Cr App R 18, [1971] 3 WLR 930
Bailii
Australia
Citing:
CitedSubramaniam 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 . .
DisapprovedRegina v Bedingfield 1879
The court had excluded evidence that the murder victim, who had run out of a house with her throat cut, had said to her aunt ‘see what Harry has done’. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Giles CACD 13-Mar-1997
The case involved an assault. The crown sought to introduce as evidence a statement made by the defendant’s brother at the scene under the res gestae rule.
Held: The circumstances were such as to allow admission of the evidence under the tests . .
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedBradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .
CitedRegina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) CACD 8-May-2003
The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s wife. The prosecution considered she would not be a reliable witness, and did not call her. Other evidence being inadmissible, the defendant was acquitted. The AG appealed.
Held: There . .
CitedMorgan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Dec-2016
Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted
The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181980

Kuruma v The Queen: PC 8 Dec 1954

(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord Goddard said: ‘In their Lordships’ opinion the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. While this proposition may not have been stated in so many words in any English case there are decisions which support it, and in their Lordships’ opinion it is plainly right in principle.’ However, the court retains a wide discretion to exclude evidence, and: ‘There can be no difference in principle for this purpose between a civil and a criminal case. No doubt in a criminal case the judge always has a discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused…. If, for instance, some admission of some piece of evidence, e.g., a document, had been obtained from a defendant by a trick, no doubt the judge might properly rule it out’.

Lord Goddard LCJ
[1955] AC 197, [1954] UKPC 43, [1955] 2 WLR 223, [1955] Crim LR 339, (1955) 119 JP 157, [1955] Crim LR 69, [1955] 1 All ER 236
Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Leathem 1861
The court overruled an objection to production of a letter which had been discovered in consequence of an inadmissible statement made by the accused: ‘It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible.’ . .

Cited by:
ConfirmedDubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
ModifiedJones v University of Warwick CA 4-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
CitedThe Public Prosecution Service v Elliott and Another CANI 28-Sep-2011
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the case based upon fingerprint evidence. The prints had been taken digitally using a device which had not been approved as required. . .
CitedPublic Prosecution Service v McKee SC 22-May-2013
Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints
The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179806

Wright v Wenlock: 1971

The court set out the circumstances in which, in the absense of an explanation, the only proper inference is careless driving.
Lord Parker CJ said ‘the facts of a particular case may be such that, in the absence of some explanation the only possible inference is careless driving’

Lord Parker CJ
[1971] RTR 228, [1972] CLR 49
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBingham, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538292

Chinn, Regina v: CACD 15 Mar 2012

The defendant appealed against his conviction for a serious assault. He argued that the prosecution should not have been allowed to introduce parts of a witness’ statement where the witness could not remember the underlying events directly.
Held: The appeal failed. Aikens LJ said ‘in order to work out the precise scope of section 120(5) we think it is necessary to look more closely at its purpose. The previous statement of a witness will have identified or described a person, object or place that is connected with an alleged offence or other relevant event. A description of a person, object or place that is made in a vacuum is of no use in criminal proceedings. The description or identification has to be put in the relevant context because the person, or object or place is being described or identified for a particular purpose in the criminal proceedings. Thus the witness may say in the statement that it was Mr X who was at the ABC Bar on a certain day at a certain time. That statement identifies Mr X in this way because it is that identification at that place and time that is relevant; probably to an alleged offence at the ABC Bar at a particular time. The same must be true of an object and a place.
Thus, we conclude that section 120(4) and (5) can be used to admit parts of Ms I’s witness statement, but not the whole of it. The parts that describe the appellant and identify him as being the person who was in the nightclub and then threw a glass bottle that hit Ms D are, in our view, admissible under section 120(5). But other parts of the narrative in the witness statement that go beyond identifying or describing the appellant and the fact that it was him that threw the glass bottle, are not admissible under section 120(4) and (5).’

Aikens LJ, Field Cooke QC JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 501, (2012) 176 JP 209, [2012] Crim LR 707, [2012] 2 Cr App R 4
Bailii
Against the Person Act 1861 20, Criminal Justice Act 1967 9, Criminal Justice Act 2003 120(4) 120(6) 139
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Virgo CACD 1978
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy and corrupt acceptance of bribes. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was a person engaged in pornography and who had allegedly bribed the defendant. The Court considered the . .
CitedRegina v Sekhon CACD 1987
A police officer witness kept an observation log based on his own observations and those of other police officers reporting to him. When retiring, the jury had requested access to the log which had been used by the officer to refresh his memory in . .
CitedPashmfouroush and Another, Regina v CACD 1-Sep-2006
Statements in an out of court witness statement were only put to the witness in cross-examination and the court was now asked whether the prosecution was entitled to re-examine on parts of the document not put to the witness in cross-examination. . .
CitedJones v Metcalfe QBD 1967
A witness saw a lorry involved in an incident and noted its registration number. He then gave the number to a policeman who had not seen the lorry.
Held: The evidence by the policeman of his note of the lorry’s number plate was inadmissible . .
CitedJones v Metcalfe QBD 1967
A witness saw a lorry involved in an incident and noted its registration number. He then gave the number to a policeman who had not seen the lorry.
Held: The evidence by the policeman of his note of the lorry’s number plate was inadmissible . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.452138

Regina v Lucas (Ruth): CACD 1981

People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) The lie must be deliberate;
(2) It must relate to a material issue;
(3) The motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth; and
(4) The statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or evidence from an independent witness.’
‘If a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure’ and ‘So the question is whether the jury should, and whether this was an appropriate case for the jury to be warned that a person may have lied for a reason other than his guilt such as something that he wishes to conceal from his family because it might disgrace him in some way in the eyes of his family . . they should have been directed in the view of the court that the evidence in question could be used against the applicant, as of course it could, but only on the basis that they were entitled to rely on it and if they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that being the general standard of proof, that there was no innocent, that is to say no non-criminal explanation for the untruthful answers.’

Lord Lane CJ
[1981] QB 720, [1981] 73 Cr App R 159, [1981] 2 All ER 1008, [1981] 3 WLR 120
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Barnett CACD 7-Feb-2002
The defendant gave three contradictory stories to explain a valuable painting found under his bed. He appealed his conviction, saying the judge should have given a Lucas direction to the effect that the fact that he had lied, did not mean inevitably . .
CitedPhilip Joshua Rahming v The Queen PC 20-May-2002
(Bahamas) The case was an appeal against a conviction for murder on the basis of the incorrect direction from the judge as to manslaughter and murder, and the failure to give a lies direction.
Held: The failure to bring the defendant before a . .
CitedMichael Pringle v The Queen PC 27-Jan-2003
PC (Jamaica) The court considered the way in which statistical conclusions drawn from DNA evidence had been presented to the jury. The judge had fallen into the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy.’ Also the court had relied . .
CitedRegina v Doheny, Adams CACD 31-Jul-1996
The court set out the procedure for the introduction of DNA evidence in criminal trials. In particular the court explained the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy’ when using statistical evidence. The significance of the DNA evidence will depend critically upon . .
CitedRegina v Becouarn HL 28-Jul-2005
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35.
Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does . .
CitedBarlow Clowes International Ltd and Another v Eurotrust International Ltd and others PC 10-Oct-2005
(Court of Appeal of the Isle of Man) Defendants appealed a finding of dishonest assistance in the activities of Barlow Clowes.
Held: The judge had been able to reach the conclusions on the basis of the evidence. The appeal of the deemster . .
CitedRegina v A S CACD 20-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed against convictions for several sexual offences. The alleged victim had originally denied that any offending had taken place. The defendant denied that anything had happened. He complained now that the court had accepted in . .
CitedCarman v Yates ChD 2005
When a civil judge thinks a witness may be lying, he should remember that witnesses may have different reasons for lying, and effectively give himself a Lucas direction. . .
CitedRegina v Middleton CACD 12-Apr-2000
Where a defendant was shown to have lied in the course of proceedings it need not always be necessary to give a Lucas direction. In some circumstances the jury could properly be expected not to follow a prohibited line of reasoning without such a . .
CitedHill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
CitedSt Paul Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v Okporuah and others ChD 10-Aug-2006
The first defendant had acquired several properties, and was due to make repayments greatly in excess of his income. A further defendant, his brother, was a solicitor who was known to have been involved in mortgage fraud and was suspected of having . .
CitedEyres v Atkinsons Kitchens and Bedrooms Ltd CA 24-Apr-2007
The driver appealed dismissal of his claim for personal injuries against his employer. He had crashed, but said that he had been awake for 19 hours.
Held: Both employer and employee must have been aware of the risks. The most likely . .
CitedLancashire County Council v R (A Minor) and others FD 4-Dec-2008
The local authority sought a care order, alleging serious physical abuse of the child. The mother said that any injuries had been inflicted by the father. The father said that the cause was the mother.
Held: The injuries were not likely to . .
CitedLondon Borough Council v K and Others FD 12-Apr-2010
The parents disputed contact for the children. The children then made allegations of very serious sex abuse against the father. A police investigation resulted in no action, it being said that the children had been coached to make false allegations . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181619

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: ‘My Lords, may I therefore summarise the position which confronts the trial judge when faced in a criminal case with an application under the res gestae doctrine to admit evidence of statements, with a view to establishing the truth of some fact thus narrated, such evidence being truly categorised as ‘hearsay evidence’?
1. The primary question which the judge must ask himself is – can the possibility of concoction or distortion be disregarded?
2. To answer that question the judge must first consider the circumstances in which the particular statement was made, in order to satisfy himself that the event was so unusual or startling or dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterance was an instinctive reaction to that event, thus giving no real opportunity for reasoned reflection. In such a situation the judge would be entitled to conclude that the involvement or the pressure of the event would exclude the possibility of concoction or distortion, providing that the statement was made in conditions of approximate but not exact contemporaneity.
3. In order for the statement to be sufficiently ‘spontaneous’ it must be so closely associated with the event which has excited the statement, that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the declarant was still dominated by the event. Thus the judge must be satisfied that the event, which provided the trigger mechanism for the statement, was still operative. The fact that the statement was made in answer to a question is but one factor to consider under this heading.
4. Quite apart from the time factor, there may be special features in the case, which relate to the possibility of concoction or distortion. In the instant appeal the defence relied upon evidence to support the contention that the deceased had a motive of his own to fabricate or concoct, namely, a malice which resided in him against O’Neill and the appellant because, so he believed, O’Neill had attacked and damaged his house and was accompanied by the appellant, who ran away on a previous occasion. The judge must be satisfied that the circumstances were such that having regard to the special feature of malice, there was no possibility of any concoction or distortion to the advantage of the maker or the disadvantage of the accused.
5. As to the possibility of error in the facts narrated in the statement, if only the ordinary fallibility of human recollection is relied upon, this goes to the weight to be attached to and not to the admissibility of the statement and is therefore a matter for the jury. However, here again there may be special features that may give rise to the possibility of error. In the instant case there was evidence that the deceased had drunk to excess, well over double the permitted limit for driving a motor car. Another example would be where the identification was made in circumstances of particular difficulty or where the declarant suffered from defective eyesight. In such circumstances the trial judge must consider whether he can exclude the possibility of error.’
. . And: ‘Whatever may be the position in civil proceedings, I would, however, strongly deprecate any attempt in criminal prosecutions to use the doctrine as a device to avoid calling, when he is available, the maker of the statement. Thus to deprive the defence of the opportunity to cross-examine him, would not be consistent with the fundamental duty of the prosecution to place all the relevant material facts before the court, so as to ensure that justice is done.’

Lord Ackner
[1987] 1 AC 281, (1987) 84 Cr App R 382, [1987] 2 WLR 413, [1987] 1 All ER 513
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRatten v The Queen PC 1-Jul-1971
Res Gestae to admit circumstances of complaint
(Victoria) Evidence had been admitted under the res gestae rule, that a woman making a telephone call was in a hysterical state.
Held: It was properly used. Where a statement is made either by the victim of an attack or by a bystander, which . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) CACD 8-May-2003
The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s wife. The prosecution considered she would not be a reliable witness, and did not call her. Other evidence being inadmissible, the defendant was acquitted. The AG appealed.
Held: There . .
CitedRegina v Giles CACD 13-Mar-1997
The case involved an assault. The crown sought to introduce as evidence a statement made by the defendant’s brother at the scene under the res gestae rule.
Held: The circumstances were such as to allow admission of the evidence under the tests . .
CitedRegina v Twist and Others CACD 12-May-2011
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 . .
CitedBarnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2015
Admission of hearsay evidence
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay.
Held: Fulford LJ said: . .
CitedMorgan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Dec-2016
Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted
The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.181979

Regina v Cooper: CACD 5 May 2010

The defendant appealed his conviction for perjury. On being accused of using a mobile phone when driving, he claimed to have been using a hands free system. Evidence later showed that his kit had been fitted only after the date of the alleged offence. The defendant said that no independent corroboration had been provided of that evidence as required by section 13 of the 1911 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Judge LCJ said: ‘the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of the statement given in evidence is not enough to found a conviction. For this purpose there must be at least two pieces of evidence, at least one of which must be independent of the witness called to establish the falsity of the statement. There must be some evidence ‘in addition’ to that witness. This may be provided by two or more witnesses, it may be provided by one witness and a document, for example, a confession by the defendant, or an incriminating letter written by him. But the necessary further evidence must be independent of the witness whose evidence requires corroboration, coming from a source independent of him. Material which is not independent of the testimony to be corroborated is not capable of amounting to corroboration.’
A jury may not convict in the absence of such corroboration.
In this case the judge had allowed the witness’s own records as corroboration. Though the laws of evidence had moved forward, this statutory requirement had not changed. The business records could not speak without the witness’s production of them, and could not count as independent corroboration.

Judge LCJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 979, [2010] WLR (D) 115, [2010] 2 Cr App R 13, (2010) 174 JP 265, [2010] 1 WLR 2390, [2010] Crim LR 949
Bailii, WLRD
Perjury Act 1911 13
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Threlfall CCA 1914
The court considered an allegation of perjury under the 1911 Act, saying: ‘The section . . amounts to this, that there can be no conviction on the evidence of one witness alone; there must be one witness and something else in addition’ . .
CitedRex v Baskerville 1916
. .
CitedRegina v Carroll and others CACD 1993
The defendants appealed against their convictions for perjury, saying that the judge had failed to remind the jury of the need for the falsity of the statement at issue to be corroborated by a second independent witness.
Held: The falsity of . .
CitedRegina v Rider CACD 1986
The defendant had obtained a divorce by forging her husband’s signature on the acknowledgment of service and elsewhere, and then swore an affidavit identifying the signature. The only evidence against her on the charge of perjury was her husband’s . .
CitedRegina v Hamid and Hamid CACD 1979
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Crime, Road Traffic

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.409982

Ibrahim And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 2014

The applicants alleged a violation of Article 6-1 and 3 (c) in that they had been interviewed by the police without access to a lawyer and that the evidence obtained from those interviews was used at their respective trials.
Held: As to the first three claimants: ‘the applicants, not the prosecution, brought the safety interview statements into play at trial by deploying a defence that was later described by the Court of Appeal as ‘ludicrous’ (see paragraph 89 above). Their defence had all the hallmarks of being tailored to fit the rest of the prosecution case against them. It would not have struck the correct balance between the applicants’ Article 6 right and the general interest in their prosecution if, when faced with that hoax defence, the prosecution had been unable to rely on statements from the applicants that not only undermined that defence but flatly contradicted it.’
As to the fourth: ‘taken cumulatively, the fourth applicant’s adoption of his statement after having received legal advice, the counterbalancing safeguards contained in the legislative framework and available at trial with a view to ensuring the fairness of the proceedings, including the trial judge’s ruling on admissibility, and the strength of the other prosecution evidence against the fourth applicant mean that no undue prejudice can be held to have been caused to his Article 6 – 1 right to a fair trial as a result of the failure to caution him and provide him with access to a lawyer during his initial police interview, followed by the admission of his statement at trial.’
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Article 6-3
Rights of defence
Article 6-3-c
Defence through legal assistance
Delayed access to a lawyer during police questioning owing to exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety: no violation
Facts – On 21 July 2005, two weeks after 52 people were killed as the result of suicide bombings in London, further bombs were detonated on the London public transport system but, on this occasion, failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene. The first three applicants were arrested but were refused legal assistance for periods of between four and eight hours to enable the police to conduct ‘safety interviews’*. During the safety interviews they denied any involvement in or knowledge of the events of 21 July. At trial, they acknowledged their involvement in the events but claimed that the bombs had been a hoax and were never intended to explode. The statements made at their safety interviews were admitted in evidence against them and they were convicted of conspiracy to murder. The Court of Appeal refused them leave to appeal.
The fourth applicant was not suspected of having detonated a bomb and was initially interviewed by the police as a witness. However, he started to incriminate himself by explaining his encounter with one of the suspected bombers shortly after the attacks and the assistance he had provided to that suspect. The police did not, at that stage, arrest and advise him of his right to silence and to legal assistance, but continued to question him as a witness and took a written statement. He was subsequently arrested and offered legal advice. In his ensuing interviews, he consistently referred to his written statement, which was admitted as evidence at his trial. He was convicted of assisting one of the bombers and of failing to disclose information about the bombings. His appeal against conviction was dismissed.
In their applications to the European Court the applicants complained that their lack of access to lawyers during their initial police questioning and the admission in evidence at trial of their statements had violated their right to a fair trial under Article 6 — 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.
Law – Article 6 — 1 and 3 (c): The Court reiterated that for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently practical and effective, access to a lawyer had to be provided, as a rule, from the first police interview of a suspect, unless it could be demonstrated that in the particular circumstances there were compelling reasons to restrict that right. Even where such compelling reasons did exist, the restriction should not unduly prejudice the rights of the defence, which would be the case where incriminating statements made during a police interview without access to a lawyer were used as a basis for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey).
Applying this test, the Court examined (a) whether compelling reasons had existed for denying the applicants’ access to a lawyer and (b) if so, whether the rights of the defence had been unduly prejudiced.
(a) Compelling reasons – The police had been under substantial pressure and had to assume that the attempt to detonate devices on 21 July was an attempt to replicate the attacks of 7 July with the risk of further loss of life on a large scale. The need to obtain, as a matter of critical urgency, information on any further planned attacks and the identities of those potentially involved, while ensuring that the integrity of the investigation was not compromised by leaks, was clearly of the most compelling nature.
That compelling nature was borne out in the first three applicants’ cases by the fact that their questioning by the police was focused on the threat posed to the public, rather than on establishing their criminality, and by the evident concern that access to legal advice would lead to the alerting of other suspects still at large. Although the position of the fourth applicant was somewhat different, in that he was being questioned as a witness, not a suspect, the decision not to arrest and caution him (which would have entitled him to legal assistance) was not unreasonable, as it was based on the fear that a formal arrest might lead him to stop disclosing information of the utmost relevance to public safety.
Accordingly there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety that provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay of all four applicants’ access to lawyers.
(b) Undue prejudice – Importantly, unlike the position in cases such as Salduz and Dayanan v. Turkey, there had been no systemic denial of access to legal assistance in the applicants’ cases. A detailed legislative framework was in place which set out a general right of access to a lawyer upon arrest, subject to exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The conditions for authorising a delay were strict and exhaustive. Once sufficient information had been obtained to avert an identified risk, questioning had to cease until the detainee had obtained legal advice. The legislation thus struck an appropriate balance between the importance of the right to legal advice and the pressing need in exceptional cases to enable the police to obtain information necessary to protect the public.
That legal framework had been carefully applied in the case of the first three applicants. Their access to a lawyer had been delayed by between four and eight hours only, well within the maximum 48 hours permitted and had been authorised by a superintendent. The reasons for the restriction on access had been recorded. As regards the fourth applicant, although he was not cautioned as soon as he became suspected of involvement in an offence as the applicable guidelines required, the clear legislation governing the admissibility of evidence obtained during police questioning had been carefully applied by the trial judge.
It was significant also that none of the applicants had alleged any coercion, compulsion or (apart from the lack of a caution in the fourth applicant’s case) other improper conduct during their questioning. Indeed, the questions put to the applicants during the relevant interviews were directed not at their own involvement in the attempted bombings but on securing information about possible further bombings by persons at large. Although the fourth applicant made self-incriminating statements during his police interview, he did not retract them when later allowed access to a lawyer and he continued to build on them before finally deciding to request their exclusion at trial.
There had also been procedural opportunities at trial to allow the applicants to challenge the admission and use of their statements and the weight to be given to them. In the case of the first three applicants the trial judge had given rigorous consideration to the circumstances surrounding their safety interviews and had taken great care in explaining why he believed the admission of statements made in those interviews would not jeopardise their right to a fair trial. He had formulated careful directions to the jury explicitly telling them that they could draw adverse inferences only in respect of the interviews conducted after the safety interviews had ended. In the fourth applicant’s case, his challenge to the admission at trial of his self-incriminating statements was carefully examined by the trial judge, who provided detailed reasons for concluding that there would be no unfairness if they were admitted in their entirety.
Lastly, the impugned statements were far from being the only incriminating evidence against the applicants. In each case there had been a significant body of independent evidence capable of undermining their defence at trial.
Taking the above-mentioned considerations cumulatively, the Court found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants’ right to a fair trial as a result of the failure to provide access to a lawyer before and during the first three applicants’ safety interviews or to caution or provide access to a lawyer to the fourth applicant during his initial police interview, followed by the admission of the statements made during those interviews at trial.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
(See Salduz v. Turkey [GC], 36391/02, 27 November 2008, Information Note 113; and Dayanan v. Turkey, 7377/03, 13 October 2009, Information Note 123)
* A safety interview is an interview conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, such interviews can take place in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice.

Ineta Ziemele, P
40351/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1392, 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08, 50541/08 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1444
Bailii, Bailii-LS
European Convention on Human Rights 6-1
Human Rights

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.540021

Regina v Hanson; Regina v Gilmore; Regina v Pickstone: CACD 22 Mar 2005

In each case complaint was made about the way in which the judge had dealt with applications by the Crown to bring in the defendant’s bad character as evidence of his propensity to commit the crime.
Held: The court set out the applicable principles. Parliament had intended to assist evidence based findings of guilt without risking conviction by prejudice. The statute provided seven gateways for admitting such evidence. To admit evidence of previous convictions they must show a propensity to the offence at issue, or to a propensity for dishonesty. There was no minimum number of events required to demonstrate such a propensity, though a single conviction would often not show propensity in the absence of some particular character to the offence.
Rose LJ VP said: ‘When considering what is just under section 103(3), and the fairness of the proceedings under section 101(3), the judge may, among other factors, take into consideration the degree of similarity between the previous conviction and the offence charged, albeit they are both within the same description or prescribed category. For example, theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm may each embrace a wide spectrum of conduct. This does not however mean that what used to be referred as striking similarity must be shown before convictions become admissible. The judge may also take into consideration the respective gravity of the past and present offences. He or she must always consider the strength of the prosecution case. If there is no or very little other evidence against a defendant, it is unlikely to be just to admit his previous convictions, whatever they are . . Our final general observation is that, in any case in which evidence of bad character is admitted to show propensity, whether to commit offences or to be untruthful the judge in summing-up should warn the jury clearly against placing undue reliance on previous convictions. Evidence of bad character cannot be used simply to bolster a weak case, or to prejudice the minds of a jury against a defendant. In particular, the jury should be directed; that they should not conclude that the defendant is guilty or untruthful merely because he has these convictions. That, although the convictions may show a propensity, this does not mean that he has committed this offence or been untruthful in this case; that whether they in fact show a propensity is for them to decide; that they must take into account what the defendant has said about his previous convictions; and that, although they are entitled, if they find propensity as shown, to take this into account when determining guilt, propensity is only one relevant factor and they must assess its significance in the light of all the other evidence in the case.’

Rose LJ VP, Hughes, Hallett JJ
Times 24-Mar-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 824, (2005) 3 CAR 21, [2005] 1 WLR 3169
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98 113
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Bovell; Regina v Dowds CACD 25-Apr-2005
The defendants appealed their convictions. In one case the prosecution had brought evidence of bad character. Bovell was convicted of wounding with intent, pleading self-defence. His legal team later discovered that the complainant had himself been . .
CitedCard, Regina v CACD 11-May-2006
The defendant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, saying that details of his previous convictions should not have been admitted under the 2003 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Where there was a risk of evidence of previous complaint . .
CitedO’Dowd v Regina CACD 12-May-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for serious sexual offences. The trial was very lengthy after the prosecution introduced bad character evidence from other allegations from some 17 years or more before. . .
CitedMcDonald v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against his convictions for murder and other offences of violence. He complained of the admission of bad character evidence against him, in the form of convictions for the use of firearms.
Held: The appeal failed. The . .
CitedNajib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
CitedRegina v Ellis CACD 12-Jan-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. He had a friction locking police-style baton, handcuffs and a false police ID in the rear of his car when stooped. After first lying he said they . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.223830

Regina v Leonard: CACD 28 Apr 2009

The defendant appealed against his convictions for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply. He complained at the use of of text messages found on his phone against him, saying they were hearsay.
Held: The texts contained assertions by a third party intending them to be believed, and were to be admitted as evidence to support the truth of those assertions. They were hearsay. As hearsay, before admission in evidence they had to meet the statutory tests, which in this case they did not. The texts should not have been admitted. Nevertheless the remaining evidence against the defendant was strong, and the verdict safe.

Aikens LJ, Hedley J, Hickinbottom J
[2009] EWCA Crim 1251, [2009] Crim LR 802, (2009) 173 JP 366
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Justice Act 2003 58 115(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 by:
CitedRegina 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.347426

Black v Regina: CACD 17 Jul 2020

Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference

The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the 1994 Act. The defendant was said to have made multiple false representations to customers when selling solar panel systems. He made no comment on interview, but said that he had believed that adequate financial arrangements had been in place to secure the promise made. He said that the particulars given had been inadequate to allow the drawing of an inference on failing to answer.
Held: here was, in this case, sufficient evidence about the strength of the prosecution case to justify giving the jury a direction under section 34 of the CJPOA 1994. This is because Mr Black confirmed in cross examination that he had lived through events and he had been given disclosure before the interview. Living through events meant, in the particular context of this case, producing a scheme by which solar panels were sold to customers on the basis that they would be repaid 100 per cent of the costs of purchase and installation within five or seven years. T

Dingemans LJ VP QBD Cheema-Grub J, Mayo HHJ
[2020] EWCA Crim 915
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Cowan and Another CACD 12-Oct-1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof . .
CitedRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
CitedBrizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
CitedCondron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .
CitedBeckles v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Oct-2002
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none . .
CitedRegina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
CitedRegina v Birchall 1999
. .
CitedPetkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.652602

Morgan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Dec 2016

Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted

The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the distressed call by the complainant for the police, and the body cam evidence of the officers attending. The complainant had refused to give evidence or support the complaint.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had taken into account all the matters required of him, and there had been supporting evidence, and he had found the appellant’s evidence not credible.

Treacy LJ, Wilkie J
[2016] EWHC 3414 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 118(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedRatten v The Queen PC 1-Jul-1971
Res Gestae to admit circumstances of complaint
(Victoria) Evidence had been admitted under the res gestae rule, that a woman making a telephone call was in a hysterical state.
Held: It was properly used. Where a statement is made either by the victim of an attack or by a bystander, which . .
CitedRegina 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: . .
CitedRegina v Riat and Others CACD 11-Jul-2012
Five defendants appealed against their convictions after the admission of hearsay evidence.
Held: The court re-iterated that the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case remained a vital consideration when deciding upon its . .
CitedIbrahim v Crown Prosecution Service Admin 2016
Admission of evidence under res gestae . .
CitedBarnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2015
Admission of hearsay evidence
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay.
Held: Fulford LJ said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.579648

Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 15 Jul 2020

Paedophile hunters’ evidence was admissible

(Scotland) The appellant had been lured into committing sexual offences online against what he was told was a 13 year old boy. The evidence was obtained by a group of so called paedophile hunters. He now appealed saying that the use of such evidence infringed his article 8 rights, and that authorisation was required to be obtained under the 2000 Act for the decoy to act as a covert human intelligence source within the meaning of that Act; that no such authorisation had been obtained; and that as a result the evidence of the decoy had been obtained unlawfully.

Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt
[2020] UKSC 32
Bailii, Bailii Issues and Facts, Bailii Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 33, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000
Scotland

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.652459

Athwal and Others, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2009

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:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedNominal 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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedSubramaniam 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 . .
CitedT, 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

Regina v Reed and Reed: CACD 21 Dec 2009

The defendants had been convicted by the use of low copy DNA evidence.
Held: Their appeals failed. Where the quantity of DNA evidence recovered was above the minimum threshold to exclude randomness, and subject to the emergence of further DNA scientific reliability evidence, challenges to the validity of the procedures as such would not be accepted. The Court of Appeal had obtained further expert evidence of the reliability of the procedures, and said that supporting evidence might be required where the volume of DNA was between 100 and 200 picogrammes. Expert evidence, based on scenes of crime experience, could be given as to the likelihood of there being other sources for the samples found.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Kitchin and Mr Justice Holroyde
[2009] EWCA Crim 2698, Times 08-Jan-2010, [2010] Crim LR 716, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep 23
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Weller CACD 4-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual offences, based in part on DNA evidence. He said that the court had not properly applied the rules when considering DNA cases and that there was now additional evidence as to the possibility . .
CitedBroughton, Regina v CACD 24-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for arson, saying that the conviction had been based on low count DNA evidence derived from a sample at the very minimal acceptable level. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.392908

Director of Public Prosecutions v P: HL 1991

The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The judge had erred in refusing separate trials.
Lord Lane CJ said that the court had looked in vain for features of similarity that was striking or that went beyond ‘the incestuous father’s ‘stock in trade” that were considered necessary if the evidence of offences against one daughter was to be admissible in relation to the offences alleged against the other. The prosecution appealed.
‘Similar facts’ is a shorthand term for identifiable common or related features of probative value going beyond mere coincidence. It is not appropriate to single out striking similarity as an essential element in every case. The essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, not withstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused intending to show that he was guilty of another crime. ‘Once the principle is recognised, that what has to be assessed is the probative force of the evidence in question, the infinite variety of circumstances in which the question arises, demonstrates that there is no single manner in which this can be achieved. Whether the evidence has sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect is a question of degree. Where the identity of the perpetrator is an issue, and evidence of this kind is important in that connection, obviously something in the nature of what has been called in the course of the argument a signature or other special feature will be necessary. To transpose this requirement to other situations where the question is whether a crime has been committed, rather than who did commit it, is to impose an unnecessary and improper restriction upon the application of the principle.’
The test of admissibility of similar fact evidence was set out. Lord Mackay LC: ‘From all that was said by the House in Reg v Boardman I would deduce the essential feature of evidence which is to be admitted is that its probative force in support of the allegation that an accused person committed a crime is sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence, notwithstanding that it is prejudicial to the accused in tending to show that he was guilty of another crime.’ While probative force may be derived from the striking similarity of the similar fact evidence this was not a precondition of admissibility: ‘Once the principle is recognised, that what has to be assessed is the probative force of the evidence in question, the infinite variety of circumstances in which the question arises, demonstrates that there is no single manner in which this can be achieved. Whether the evidence has sufficient probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect must in each case be a question of degree.’

Lord Mackay LC
[1991] 93 Crim App R 267, [1991] 2 AC 447, [1991] 3 All ER 337, [1991] 3 WLR 161
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMakin v Attorney-General for New South Wales PC 12-Dec-1893
The accused had been charged with the murder of an infant who had been given into their care by the child’s mother after payment of a fee. They appealed after admission of evidence that several other infants had been received by the accused persons . .
CitedRegina v Boardman HL 1974
The defendant appealed the admission of similar fact evidence against him. Acts of buggery were alleged by a schoolmaster with boys in which the accused was the passive partner.
Held: In order to be admissible similar facts must bear a . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Venn CACD 1-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed convictions for sexual assault against four young girls.
Held: The admissibility of ‘similar fact’ evidence depends upon the degree of its relevance. If only suggests propensity it is inadmissible. If it goes further and . .
CitedRegina v Musquera CACD 1999
The court observed that, while the decision in DPP v P had eliminated the necessity to identify a striking similarity, it was still necessary to invoke some identifiable common feature or features constituting a significant connection and going . .
CitedOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
CitedO’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
CitedRegina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
CitedBrizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
CitedThomas v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis CA 28-Nov-1996
In an action for damages and false imprisonment, the defendant police officers sought to have introduced the claimant’s previous criminal record, which was expired under the 1974 Act.
Held: The judge had been correct not to follow practice in . .
CitedRegina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
CitedO’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
CitedSteel v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 10-Feb-1993
The plaintiffs sued three police officers for malicious prosecution. Specific discovery of documents relating to the previous misconduct of one of these officers was refused.
Held: Appeal allowed. Confessions were the only evidence against the . .
CitedRegina v B (Evidence: Propensity) CACD 27-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assaults, denying that any assaults had taken place. He complained that the judge had allowed questioning about his sexual propensities.
Held: Propensity to acts is not admissible as evidence . .
CitedRegina v Jan CACD 12-Oct-2006
After his conviction for causing a public nuisance, and for arson, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge applied the section to decline to set a minimum tariff. He had set out on a large scale harassment campaign against former . .
CitedSeaton v Regina CACD 13-Aug-2010
The defendant had been accused of recent fabrication of evidence, having given evidence in court which varied from that given in interview on arrest. The crown had commented on his failure to call his solicitor to give evidence. The defendant said . .
CitedMitchell, Regina v SC 19-Oct-2016
Appeal against conviction for murder. Evidence was agreed with her representatives as to previous acts using knives, but was presented despite withdrawal by her of her consent. The prosecution now appealed against the quashing of the conviction.
Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.181002

Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but the details did not show the sentences imposed, no certificate of disqualification was entered, and it was not formally admitted. The magistrates had said that they relied on answers of ‘no comment’ given at interview.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the person accused was a disqualified driver, and secondly it can be proved by any admissible means, such as an admission — even a non-formal one by the accused — that he was a disqualified driver. It was wholly inappropriate for the magistrates to have drawn any inference from the lack of comment on the part of the appellant. It is not as if he subsequently relied on any fact or matter which gave rise to the opportunity of drawing the adverse inference from the failure to answer the question.

Scot Baker LJ, Maddison J
[2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.293959

Regina v Weller: CACD 4 Mar 2010

The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual offences, based in part on DNA evidence. He said that the court had not properly applied the rules when considering DNA cases and that there was now additional evidence as to the possibility of a DNA transfer having taken place, and in particular that there was no proper basis for the evaluation of the various possibilities to support the prosecution expert’s evidence.
Held: The appeal failed. On the basis of the state of the science at the date of the trial, the evidence was capable of being evaluated. The defendant now sought to bring in new unpublished material of his expert: ‘it is unrealistic to examine a field of science of this kind only by reference to published sources. A court in determining whether there is a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for expert evidence to be given and a jury in evaluating evidence will be entitled to take into account the experience of experts and, if their experience is challenged, to test that. If the evidence upon which they rely for the basis of their experience is challenged, then that can be evaluated by cross-examination.’ Notwithstanding, there was no fresh evidence to disturb the conviction.

Thomas LJ, Coulson J, Sir Geoffrey Grigson
[2010] EWCA Crim 1085
Bailii
Criminal Procedure Rules 33
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Abadom CACD 1982
A properly qualified expert is entitled to rely on what might otherwise be considered as hearsay, that is to say findings by other experts in the same field in support of an opinion on any given set of facts. ‘In the context of evidence given by . .
CitedRegina v Reed and Reed CACD 21-Dec-2009
The defendants had been convicted by the use of low copy DNA evidence.
Held: Their appeals failed. Where the quantity of DNA evidence recovered was above the minimum threshold to exclude randomness, and subject to the emergence of further DNA . .

Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Richmond v B and Others FD 12-Nov-2010
Caution in Use of Hair Samples to Test Alcohol
The court considered the extent to which reliance could be placed on tests of hair samples for alcohol in care proceedings.
Held: Such evidence should be used with caution: ‘(i) When used, hair tests should be used only as part of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.415926

Alexander v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 28 Mar 2013

The judge had allowed as hearsay evidence, details of a statement made by the appellant to a nurse at the hospital after his arrest. He had however disallowed other parts of the same conversation in which the defendant had denied his involvement.
Held: As a mixed statement, the judge had been wrong to exclude exculpatory elements. However the misdirection in question had had no determinative significance and that the appeal was refused.

Lord Marnoch
[2013] ScotHC HCJAC – 35
Bailii

Scotland, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510251

South, Regina v: CACD 18 Mar 2011

Appeal against conviction of burglary. Admission of bad character evidence (many convictions of dishonesty) against alibi witness put forward only late – use of footprint matching evidence
[2011] EWCA Crim 754
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 100
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBrewster and Cromwell v Regina CACD 27-May-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for kidnapping and witness intimidation saying that the court should have allowed them to put the principle prosecution witness’ bad character in issue by admission of her criminal convictions.
CitedT, Regina v CACD 26-Oct-2010
The court heard an appeal against a conviction for murder, the principle evidence being in the form of likelihood ratios in the interpretation of footwear marks.
Thomas LJ, giving the reserved judgment of the court, stated that if a footwear . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.434854

Regina v Davies (Keith): CACD 23 Jan 2002

The defendant had obtained a psychiatric report through his solicitors. The report was adverse, and he did not call the expert. Instead the Crown applied and had the same expert give evidence. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: The doctor’s position, having been instructed by the solicitors for the purposes of the proceedings, was privileged as was the solicitor’s own knowledge. There is no property in a witness, but her evidence relied upon material protected by privilege. The defendant was to be protected from accidentally incriminating himself, and he was entitled to assume that what was said to a doctor instructed by his lawyers was just as protected as what was said to them.
May, Goldring, Gross LLJ
Times 04-Mar-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 85, [2002] 1 WLR 1806
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10(1)(b)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.167721

Regina v Spinks: CACD 1982

Spinks was charged under section 4(1) of the 1967 Act, in that knowing or believing that a Mr Fairey had committed an arrestable offence, he acted with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution. To prove that Fairey had committed an arrestable offence, the prosecution relied on police officers statements as to statements made by Fairey, in the absence of the defendant, in which he said that he had stabbed someone. A submission of no case to answer was rejected and Spinks was convicted.
Held: The Court allowed his appeal. The court referred to ‘the universal rule which excludes out of court admissions being used to provide evidence against a co-accused, whether indicted jointly or separately’. ‘In the judgment of this Court the offence with which the appellant was charged and the means of establishing it do not provide any exception to the universal rule which excludes out of court admissions being used to provide evidence against a co-accused, whether indicted jointly or separately’ and ‘In his summing-up the learned recorder left the jury with the clear impression that they could, if they wished, rely upon Fairey’s admissions to prove the wounding, not only against him but against the appellant. In doing so there was a plain misdirection.’
Watkins LJ, Kilner Brown and Russell JJ
[1982] 1 All ER 587
Criminal Law Act 1967 4(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
CitedPersad v Trinidad and Tobago PC 23-Jul-2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the admissibility of out of court admissions as against co-defendants. Three defendants faced allegations of a series of violent crimes. The appellant said the only evidence against him for an offence of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222542

Regina v Blastland: HL 1985

The majority decision of the House in Myers v DPP ‘established the principle, never since challenged, that it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to create new exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ and ‘Hearsay evidence is not excluded because it has no logical probative value . . The rationale of excluding [hearsay] as inadmissible, rooted as it is in the system of trial by jury, is a recognition of the great difficulty, even more acute for a juror than for a trained judicial mind, of assessing what, if any, weight can properly be given to a statement by a person whom the jury have not seen or heard and which has not been subject to any test of reliability in cross-examination . . The danger against which this fundamental rule provides a safeguard is that untested hearsay evidence will be treated as having a probative force which it does not deserve.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1986] AC 41, [1985] 2 All ER 1095, [1985] 3 WLR 345, (1985) 81 Cr App R 266
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMyers v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1965
Limits to Admission of Hearsay Evidence
It was not for the House to alter the admissibility of hearsay evidence on a case by case basis.
Lord Reid said: ‘I have never taken a narrow view of the functions of this House as an appellate tribunal. The common law must be developed to . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
CitedCole and Another v Regina CACD 30-Jul-2007
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222548

Regina v Hayter: HL 3 Feb 2005

The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. The judge had directed that the jury could use the fact of the actual murderer’s conviction to support their consideration of the guilt of the middleman and the prime mover. The actual murderer’s guilt was proved by confession. The others objected that this amounted to conviction of them on the basis of the confession of the third.
Held: The appeals failed (by a majority). The value of joint trial was accepted subject to the protection of defendants. A voluntary out of court confession or admission against interest made by a defendant is an exception to the hearsay rule, and is admissible against him, but in a joint trial, the prosecution may not rely on what the maker of a confession said against a co-accused, and a trial judge must direct the jury to ignore a confession made by an accused in considering the case against a co-defendant. Some of the earlier cases on the topic would now be decided differently because of changes in the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and those case were no longer relevant. The rules against admission of such evidence should be relaxed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[2005] UKHL 6, Times 07-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 605
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Lake CACD 1976
Subject to a judge’s discretion to order separate trials in the interests of justice, there are powerful public reasons why joint offences should be tried jointly. . .
CitedRegina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
Appeal fromRegina v Hayter CACD 16-Apr-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, on the basis that the jury had used a conclusion about the guilt of a jointly accused to support his own conviction.
Held: Section 74 had altered the law, and earlier cases were no . .
CitedRegina v Rhodes 1959
. .
CitedHollington v E Hewthorn and Co Ltd CA 1943
Decisions of an earlier tribunal were not binding or admissible in later proceedings where the earlier proceedings were before a court of criminal jurisdiction. Evidence of a prior conviction would not have been admissible in separate criminal . .
CitedRegina v Spinks CACD 1982
Spinks was charged under section 4(1) of the 1967 Act, in that knowing or believing that a Mr Fairey had committed an arrestable offence, he acted with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution. To prove that Fairey had committed an . .
CitedRegina v Hickey, Hickey, Robinson, Molloy CACD 30-Jul-1997
The case concerned the production for the benefit of the defence, of the prison records of a prosecution witness who was putting forward an account of a cell confession. The Appeal Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellant, . .
CitedLobban v The Queen PC 28-Apr-1995
(Jamaica) The judge had no discretion to exclude evidence on request of co-defendant in joint trial. The exculpatory part of co-accused statement not to be excluded since it was his right to have it put in. Those who are charged with an offence . .
CitedHM Advocate v Kemp 1891
. .
CitedMontes v HM Advocate HCJ 1990
The appellant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of cocaine by importing a quantity of cocaine on a ship which docked at Greenock. The trial judge directed the jury that, in . .
CitedMcIntosh v HM Advocate HCJ 1986
The appellant was convicted of supplying cannabis to a named individual at a house in Paisley. The appellant had acted with his co-accused Miss C who had made the actual supply. There was sufficient evidence against Miss C to prove that she had made . .
CitedRutherford v Richardson HL 1923
The decision of legal issues must depend on rigid rules of evidence necessarily general in their scope. It was very likely, therefore, in individual applications, to present an appearance of artificiality and even of inconsistency: ‘The issues . .
CitedMyers v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1965
Limits to Admission of Hearsay Evidence
It was not for the House to alter the admissibility of hearsay evidence on a case by case basis.
Lord Reid said: ‘I have never taken a narrow view of the functions of this House as an appellate tribunal. The common law must be developed to . .
CitedRegina v Blastland HL 1985
The majority decision of the House in Myers v DPP ‘established the principle, never since challenged, that it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to create new exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ and ‘Hearsay evidence is not excluded because it . .
CitedTeper v The Queen PC 1952
The defendant was charged with arson of his own shop. A woman had been heard to shout to a passing motorist ‘Your place burning and you going away from the fire’.
Held: the defendant’s alibi could not be contradicted by the evidence of a . .

Cited by:
CitedSimmons and Another v Regina PC 3-Apr-2006
(Bahamas) The appellants challenged admission of confession statements at their trial. A statement was not to be admitted without proof hat it had not been obtained by oppression.
Held: The defendant would have failed in a submission of no . .
CitedPersad v Trinidad and Tobago PC 23-Jul-2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the admissibility of out of court admissions as against co-defendants. Three defendants faced allegations of a series of violent crimes. The appellant said the only evidence against him for an offence of . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.222206

Regina v Hayter: CACD 16 Apr 2003

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, on the basis that the jury had used a conclusion about the guilt of a jointly accused to support his own conviction.
Held: Section 74 had altered the law, and earlier cases were no longer relevant. A prior conviction would now be admissible to prove the commission of offences by others jointly accused, and so now would be a jury’s own finding of the guilt of a co-accused. It would not be sensible to withhold evidence from a jury which would prove the guilt of a co-accused.
Mantell LJ, Jack, Hedley JJ
Times 18-Apr-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 1048, [2003] 1 WLR 1910
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74
England and Wales
Citing:
DsitinguishedRegina v Hickey, Hickey, Robinson, Molloy CACD 30-Jul-1997
The case concerned the production for the benefit of the defence, of the prison records of a prosecution witness who was putting forward an account of a cell confession. The Appeal Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellant, . .
CitedHollington v E Hewthorn and Co Ltd CA 1943
Decisions of an earlier tribunal were not binding or admissible in later proceedings where the earlier proceedings were before a court of criminal jurisdiction. Evidence of a prior conviction would not have been admissible in separate criminal . .
CitedRegina v Rhodes 1959
. .
CitedRegina v Hickey, Hickey, Robinson, Molloy CACD 30-Jul-1997
The case concerned the production for the benefit of the defence, of the prison records of a prosecution witness who was putting forward an account of a cell confession. The Appeal Court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellant, . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.180846

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.
Held: The evidence was not hearsay. The various letter authors did not have the purpose of causing the defendant to believe any representation that there might be, nor to act upon its truth. Common membership of the gang was simply the shared basis of the communications.
Sir Anthony May P, Holroyde, Spencer JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 2378, (2011) 175 JP 39
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Twist and Others CACD 12-May-2011
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.426763

Rex v John Tippet: 1823

Confession of a prisoner evidence against him, without positive proof aliunde of the offence having been committed.
[1823] EngR 177, (1823) Russ and Ry 509, (1823) 168 ER 923 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedShagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.328217

Regina v Daly: CACD 23 Nov 2001

CS Kennedy LJ: ‘we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to rely to explain the silence at interview, despite the form of the caution administered to him. [Sc Secondly,] At that stage he had not seen the video film, he was therefore unaware of the full weight of the prosecution case against him and in the light of his solicitor’s advice he may have been understandably reluctant to admit a lesser but still serious offence. That made it particularly important in this case for the judge to say to the jury that they should only be prepared to draw an adverse inference if satisfied that the only sensible explanation for the appellant’s failure to give in interview the explanation which he gave in his defence statement and at trial was that at the time of the interview he had no answer to the charge, or none that would stand up to questioning and investigation. It was important that the jury not be left at liberty to draw an adverse inference notwithstanding that it might have been satisfied with the plausibility of the appellant’s explanation for his silence (see Condron v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1 at paragraph 61 and R. v. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 251, at paragraph 48).’
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell, And, Mr Justice Cooke
[2001] EWCA Crim 2643, [2002] 2 Cr App R 14
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPetkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.166921

Rex v Berg and others: CCA 1927

The defendants were said to have conducted a disorderly house in providing exhibitions of a perverted nature.
Held: The common law offence of keeping a disorderly house is committed when the house is so conducted as to violate law and good order. Letters found in such a house referring to unnatural practices may be put in evidence of such use.
(1927) 20 Cr App R 38
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCourt, Regina v CACD 9-Feb-2012
The defendants appealed against their convictions under common law for keeping a disorderly house. They were landlords using an agreement requiring the tenant not to be used for immoral purposes. There was evidence of limited sexual activity. Only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.451143

Regina v Lydon: CACD 1987

A gun and two scraps of paper (saying ‘Sean rules’) were found along the route of a road passed by a car with which the prosecution sought to link the defendant (Sean Lydon). The documents and the gun could themselves be linked forensically.
Held: They were admissible evidence to corroborate a disputed identification connecting the defendant to the car and thus to a robbery, but not to prove that Sean did indeed rule. The court explained: ‘Sometimes it is possible to avoid the hearsay rule by showing that a statement made in a document is being used as an original and independent fact for instance, that a person who made use of the document had certain information in his possession at a relevant time – and not as evidence of the facts stated. It is always important therefore, whenever an objection is taken on hearsay grounds, to ascertain for precisely what purpose the evidence is being tendered. It may be hearsay for one purpose and not, and therefore admissible, for another,’ per Cox J in R v. Romeo (1982) 30 SASR 243 at 262.
‘In these cases it seems that the writing when properly admissible at all, is relevant not as an assertion of the state of facts but as itself a fact which affords circumstantial evidence upon the basis of which the jury may draw an inference from any other relevant circumstance of the case’ Cross on Evidence, 6th ed, at 464.
Woolf LJ
(1987) 85 Cr App R 221
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOwens and Another, Regina v CACD 6-Sep-2006
The defendants appealed convictions and sentence (6 and 4 years) for conspiracy to sell red diesel as ‘DERV’ and for money laundering of the proceeds of the crime. The sums involved exceeded andpound;1.4m. They said that documents should not have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.245164

Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2): HL 17 May 2001

The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant as to make the trial unfair without its admission, the section excluding such admission should be read so as to allow admission of such evidence. Evidence of earlier sexual behaviour of a woman has in the past been used to stereotype them as being both unchaste and untruthful. There had remained a serious mischief to be corrected. Nevertheless, a prior relationship could well affect the minds of the parties, and may be relevant. What constituted ‘at or about the same time’ for the purposes of admission, was to be read accordingly.
Lord Steyn observed that, while the right to a fair trial was absolute in the sense that a conviction obtained in breach of it could not stand, in determining what the concept of a fair trial entails, account could be taken of the familiar triangulation of the interests of the accused, the victim, and society.
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Times 24-May-2001, [2001] UKHL 25, [2001] 3 All ER 1, [2001] 2 WLR 1586, [2002] 1 AC 45, [2001] UKHRR 825, (2001) 165 JPN 750, [2001] HRLR 48, [2001] Cr App R 21, 11 BHRC 225, (2001) 165 JP 609
Bailii, House of Lords
Human Rights Act 1998 3, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister) HL 21-Mar-2001
An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant’s sexual history. . .

Cited by:
CitedGoode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedBalamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
CitedRusbridger and Another v Attorney General CA 20-Mar-2002
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act.
Held: . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
CitedRegina v F (Complainant’s sexual history) CACD 3-Mar-2005
The defendant had sought to raise the complainant’s sexual history in evidence. The allegation was that he had repeatedly raped his step daughter. He wished to put in evidence that after she had grown up, they had lived together after she had . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedFrancis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Nov-2005
The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedPearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
CitedIn re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
CitedA v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
CitedChild Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
CitedMatheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
CitedGjoni v Regina CACD 9-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, raising an issue as to the proper approach to a judgment whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of the complainant relating to a ‘relevant issue in the case’ within the meaning of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.88367

Edwards and Another, Regina v: CACD 21 Dec 2005

Each defendant challenged the use of bad character evidence against them under the 2003 Act.
Held: There is no blueprint for bad character directions. The requirements for a fair trial will depend upon the evidence and the issues which arise in the particular case.
Scott Baker LJ, Gross, Ramsey JJ
[2005] EWCA Crim 3244, [2006] 2 Cr App R 4
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedO’Dowd v Regina CACD 12-May-2009
The defendant appealed against his conviction for serious sexual offences. The trial was very lengthy after the prosecution introduced bad character evidence from other allegations from some 17 years or more before. . .
CitedNajib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.237593

Regina v Nottle: CACD 25 Feb 2004

The defendant appealed against his conviction for criminal damage. He had been accused of scratching an obscene message on a car. In doing so the person had misspelled the car owner’s name. When asked to write out the message, on interview the defendant had repeated the same misspelling four times. Expert evidence was unable to compare the handwritten notes with the scratching of the car. The defendant said that the the notes should not have been admitted at all.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Section 76 did not assist the defendant. There had been no oppression or any other element to make any confession unreliable.
As to the complaint that the officer had not disclosed the misspelling: ‘The Recorder was also correct . . to find that the police were not obliged to disclose every piece of evidence that they had. The purpose of the pre-interview disclosure derives from the realisation by the police that, without proper disclosure, solicitors cannot properly advise their clients. They voluntarily provide disclosure in order to counter an argument at trial that no adverse inferences should be drawn under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 from the suspect’s failure to answer questions. There are, we understand, no rules or established procedure about this disclosure. The quality and quantity of disclosure will depend on the case. The officer must assess the risk of giving inadequate disclosure, namely that no adverse inferences will be drawn.’
Buxton LJ, Simon, Tiling JJ
[2004] EWCA Crim 599
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Voisin 1918
The defendant stood charged with the murder of a woman, part of whose body was found in a parcel along with a handwritten note bearing the words ‘Bladie Belgiam’. The defendant, who had not yet been cautioned, was asked by the police to write the . .
CitedRegina v Roble CACD 21-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for wounding with intent. He had answered ‘no comment’ in the police interview, but claimed self defence at trial. The court considered what note should be taken of the solicitor’s evidence of his advice . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.448366

Hollington v F Hewthorne and Co Limited: CA 1943

The defendant had been involved in a road accident in which the plaintiff’s son had died, and had been convicted of careless driving. The plaintiff as the personal representative of his son sued for damages for negligence, seeking to rely on the conviction as prima facie evidence that the defendant was driving carelessly at the time. The judge rejected the conviction as evidence but found for the plaintiff on other grounds.
Held: On the defendant’s appeal the plaintiff claimed that the judge had been wrong to reject the conviction as such prima facie evidence. Relevance is the main consideration determining whether or not evidence is admissible. The conviction was inadmissible on two grounds; first, that the opinion of the court exercising the criminal jurisdiction as evidenced by the certificate of conviction was not relevant; second, as hearsay evidence it did not comply with the best evidence rule.
As to the first ground: ‘In truth, the conviction is only proof that another court considered that the defendant was guilty of careless driving. Even were it proved that it was the accident that led to the prosecution, the conviction proves no more than what has just been stated. The court which has to try the claim for damages knows nothing of the evidence that was before the criminal court. It cannot know what arguments were addressed to it, or what influenced the court in arriving at its decision. Moreover, the issue in the criminal proceedings is not identical with that raised in the claim for damages. Assume that evidence is called to prove that the defendant did collide with the plaintiff, that has only an evidential value on the issue whether the defendant, by driving carelessly, caused damage to the plaintiff. To link up or identify the careless driving with the accident, it would be necessary in most cases, probably in all, to call substantially the same evidence before the court trying the claim for personal injuries, and so proof of the conviction by itself would amount to no more than proof that the criminal court came to the conclusion that the defendant was guilty. It is admitted that the conviction is in no sense an estoppel, but only evidence to which the Court or a jury can attach such weight as they think proper, but it is obvious that once the defendant challenges the propriety of the conviction the court, on the subsequent trial, would have to retry the criminal case to find out what weight ought to be attached to the result. It frequently happens that a bystander has a complete and full view of an accident. It is beyond question that, while he may inform the court of everything he saw, he may not express any opinion on whether either or both of the parties were negligent. The reason commonly assigned is that this is the precise question the court has to decide, but, in truth, it is because his opinion is not relevant. Any fact that he can prove is relevant, but his opinion is not. The well recognised exception in the case of scientific or expert witnesses depends on considerations which, for present purposes, are immaterial. So, on the trial of the issue in the civil court, the opinion of the criminal court is equally irrelevant.’ Evidence of a prior conviction was not admissible in separate proceedings to establish the truth of the underlying allegation.
[1943] KB 587
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLevey, Regina v CACD 27-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed against his conviction of manslaughter of his baby son. He said that a family court had previously investigated the same allegations and had explicitly found itself unable to say which of himself and the mother were . .
Not applicableRegina v Kordansinski CACD 7-Nov-2006
The defendant objected to the admission against him of documents of his convictions for similar sexual offences in Poland.
Held: So far as the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn ever applied in criminal cases, it was not disapplied by section 99 of . .
CitedSimms v Conlon and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
Solicitors within a practice sued each other, and one wished to plead the fact of a finding of professional misconduct.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. It was not an abuse for the appellant to continue to assert his innocence, and the . .
CitedSecretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Aaron and others CA 16-Oct-2008
In asking a court to order the disqualification of a company director, the Secretary of State may call in evidence findings of the Financial Services Authority as to misconduct, but no those of the Financial Services Ombudsman. The rule in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.244675

Lowe v Regina: CACD 14 Dec 2007

The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, saying the judge had misused the bad character evidence.
Held: The judge had misdirected the jury and the conviction could not stand. He should have identified each element introduced according to the ruling admitting the evidence, and given a direction for each as to the need for the criminal standard of proof, to disregard any point not so proved, as to the significance of any point the found to be proved, and the need for care with alternate possibilities.
‘there should have been a bad character direction, encompassing the following elements:
(a) Identification of the incidents evidence of which had been adduced pursuant to his bad character ruling;
(b) A direction that, with respect to each incident, the jury should decide whether the facts as alleged by the Crown had been proved so that they were sure of them, that is to the criminal standard of proof;
(c) A direction that, with respect to any incident not so proved, the evidence should be put aside and accorded no significance;
(d) A direction as to the potential significance of any incident that had been proved – in this case that the incidents may throw light on the relationship between Complainant and Defendant and thus bear upon the potential for consent on her part to his sexual advances; and
(e) finally, a warning against necessarily according the incidents any significance if an alternative construction serves to cast doubt upon the construction contended for by the Crown and also against attaching too much weight to this evidence.
In formulating this approach we have drawn a ready parallel between it and the approach to evidence as to lies, that is, the Lucas Direction. Just as the latter imposes a two stage consideration (are you sure that he did lie? If so, why did he lie – were the reasons consistent with guilt or were they or may they have been innocent?), we have here in a case not involving previous convictions, a need to make a finding as to the fact of the incident alleged before proceeding to a further stage of assessment of significance in accordance with the burden and standard of proof.’
Smith LJ, Underhill J, Sir Christopher Holland
[2007] EWCA Crim 3047
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 98
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Campbell (K) CACD 26-Jun-2007
The defendant complained that the court, having admitted his previous convictions, had made only an inadequate distinction for the jury between its use as evidence of propensity as opposed to credibility.
Held: The appeal failed. Once the . .

Cited by:
CitedSullivan, Regina v CACD 25-Sep-2015
The defendant appealed against his conviction of producing a controlled drug, namely cannabis. It was contended that the judge failed to provide guidance or directions to the jury as to how they ought to approach the text messages downloaded from . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.262170

Regina v Ollis: CCCR 1900

The defendant had obtained a sum of money by giving a worthless cheque. He was indicted for having obtained the money by false pretences. His defence was that when he gave the cheque he expected a payment into his bank account in time to meet the cheque, and he was acquitted. He was later tried on a second indictment charging him with three other acts of obtaining money by false pretences on three other worthless cheques. Counsel for the prosecution was allowed to call the same evidence that had been called against the defendant on the unsuccessful prosecution in respect of the one cheque, and the defendant was convicted.
Held: The evidence was legally admissible and that the conviction was right notwithstanding that the defendant had been acquitted of the former charge.
Lord Russell of Killowen CJ: ‘The evidence was, after discussion, admitted; and Ramsey made precisely the same statement he had made before upon the trial of the first indictment when the accused was acquitted. The only point for our present determination is, whether that evidence was legally admissible on the ground that the facts disclosed in it were relevant to the subsequent charges. It does not appear to have been argued that it was not relevant as showing guilty knowledge, if it were not inadmissible on the grounds suggested-namely, that the facts sought to be given in evidence had already been given, and that the accused had already been acquitted of the charge to which they related. It is clear that there was no estoppel; the negativing by the jury of the charge of fraud on the first occasion did not create an estoppel; nor is there any question arising upon the maxim ‘Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto.’ The evidence was not less admissible because it tended to shew that the accused was, in fact, guilty of the former charge. The point is, was it relevant in support of the three subsequent charges? In the opinion of the majority of the court, and in my own opinion, it was relevant as shewing a course of conduct on the part of the accused, and a belief on his part that the cheques would not be met.’
Darling J: ‘It seems to me, therefore, that by the admission of this evidence the defendant was not ‘bis vexatus,’ for I feel sure that those words are not to be understood as meaning that a man is not to be more than once annoyed by the same evidence. I think they mean that he is not to be by legal process twice exposed to the risk of being found guilty of the same crime, or the same tort, or liable twice to pay the same debt, be it to the State or to his fellow citizen.
‘To hold otherwise seems to me to rule that evidence which has been given once shall never be produced again against the same defendant; yet it is plain that up to a certain point the evidence must often be the same, although the defendant is accused of wrongs done to two distinct persons, and that in different suits or forensic proceedings.’
Channell J: ‘Judges should be, and I believe generally are, careful not to allow proof of other acts of the prisoner besides those the subject of the indictment to be given, unless those facts have a clear bearing on some issue raised by the indictment, but if they have such a bearing I am unable to see how their proof becomes inadmissible because they have already, for a different purpose, been considered by another jury. Take as an illustration a case of counterfeit coin. Suppose a man passes a counterfeit half-crown, and on his trial, there being no proof of his having possession of any other counterfeit coin, the jury acquit. It is subsequently discovered that either before or after the passing of the one half-crown (in my opinion it matters not which) he has passed another counterfeit half-crown, and upon comparison of the two base coins they appear cast in the same mould. If tried for the secondly discovered case of uttering, the fact of the other uttering would be most cogent evidence, and the fact that when that other case was supposed to be an isolated one a jury had acquitted would neither detract from the weight of the evidence or in any way affect its admissibility, for the prisoner would not be being tried again for the offence of which he had been acquitted, but for a different offence, in respect of which the evidence given in the former case, or some of it, would be relevant . . .
I doubt whether the transaction with Ramsey was relevant on the subsequent indictment, but I am prepared to defer to the opinion of the majority of the court as to the mode in which the case should be dealt with, desiring only to express my clear opinion that, if the evidence was otherwise admissible, it is not the less so by reason of the former acquittal.’
Lord Russell of Killowen CJ, Mathew, Grantham, Wright, Darling and Channell JJ (Bruce and Ridley JJ dissenting)
[1900] 2 QB 758
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Terry CACD 21-Dec-2004
The prosecutor had a alleged a conspiracy basing the charge on a conversation in a car. The court rejected the admisibility of evidence of a voice recognition expert, and the defendant was acquitted on direction. He then said that in the absence of . .
CitedRegina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .
DistinguishedG (An Infant) v Coltart 1967
The defendant was a domestic servant. She was charged in two separate prosecutions before justices with theft of property from her employer and from a a guest. The property was found in her room after the guest had left. The prosecution offered no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.221710

Brewster and Cromwell v Regina: CACD 27 May 2010

The defendants appealed against their convictions for kidnapping and witness intimidation saying that the court should have allowed them to put the principle prosecution witness’ bad character in issue by admission of her criminal convictions.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The credibility of the witness was a real issue, and the proposed evidence did go, even if only indirectly, to that credibility. It should be admitted if it was reasonably capable of assisting a fair minded jury to reach a view as to whether the witness’s evidence was worthy of belief.
The phrase ‘substantive probative value’ in section 100(1)(b) had received narrow and wider interpretations, as to whether only directly relevant or in addition indirectly relevant evidence could be admitted.
Pitchford LJ said the questions are: is the creditworthiness of the witness an issue of substantial importance; and is the bad character relied upon of substantial probative value in relation to that issue?
Pitchford LJ, Maddison, Macduff JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1194, [2010] WLR(D) 159, [2011] Crim LR 58, [2011] 1 WLR 601, [2010] 2 Cr App R 20, (2010) 174 JP 353
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSouth, Regina v CACD 18-Mar-2011
Appeal against conviction of burglary. Admission of bad character evidence (many convictions of dishonesty) against alibi witness put forward only late – use of footprint matching evidence . .
CitedGreenstein v Campaign v Antisemitism CA 9-Jul-2021
Failure to plead decisive malice allegation
Appeal by the claimant against an order following a judgment striking out particulars of malice pleaded in the amended reply, among other determinations. Judgment was then entered in favour of the Campaign Against Antisemitsm in respect of a claim . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.416109

Plaza, R v: CACD 13 Mar 2013

Appeal from conviction of conspiracy to supply a class A drug – the judge was wrong to allow the prosecution to put in evidence his conviction in the Netherlands and that as a result his conviction is unsafe.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The judge dealt with the Dutch conviction in an entirely appropriate manner in his summing-up. He made it clear to the jury that they had to be sure that the appellant had in fact committed the offence before they could take it into consideration at all. He also explained its potential relevance to the issues of innocent association and propensity while making it clear that whether the conviction did in fact assist on either of those questions was entirely a matter for them.’
[2013] EWCA Crim 501
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(3), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales

Updated: 10 July 2021; Ref: scu.510711

Plunkett and Another, Regina v: CACD 13 Mar 2013

The defendants appealed against their convictions after admission of secret tape recordings made by the police in breach, said the defendants of the 2000 Act and unlawful. The recordings had been in the police van. The Crown said that this was not a private vehicle, and not intrusive surveillance under the 2000 Act.
Held: Whilst there may be justification for treating a police or prison cell as private that could not be extended to a police van. It was not a private space.
The judge had found that in view of the continuing danger to the untraced victim of the kidnapping, the authorisation for the recording was proportionate. That decision was correct, and there was no breach of the defendants’ article 6 rights.
Sir John Thomas P QBD, Swift, MacDuff JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 261, [2013] WLR(D) 98, [2013] HRLR 19, [2013] Crim LR 765, [2013] 2 Cr App R 2, [2013] 1 WLR 3121
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(b), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMason, Wood, McClelland, Tierney v Regina CACD 13-Feb-2002
The appellants appealed their convictions on two grounds. First the judge who had heard the case was an acquaintance of the chief constable of the investigating force, and second evidence had been admitted of tape recordings of non-privileged . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.471670

Gibson, Regina v: CACD 11 Jan 2006

The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be taken against her but the letters were qualified. An application not to have her evidence admitted was made under s78 of the 1984 Act, but refused. The judge had given full warning of the dangers in the evidence.
Held: The judge’s ruling and directions on the evidence were not to be faulted. None of the suggested grounds were sufficient to undermine the convictions.
Rix LJ, Bell J, Sir John Alliott
[2006] EWCA Crim 1
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Pentonville Prison Governor, ex parte Schneider 1981
The court considered the dangers of admitting evidence from accomplices who may be seeking to exculpate themselves. . .
CitedChan Wai-Keung v The Queen PC 10-Jan-1994
(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly . .
CitedRegina v Turner CACD 1975
The starting point for sentencing for a serious armed robbery or the ‘hold up’ of a security or Post Office vehicle is in the region of 15 years, if firearms were carried and no serious injury inflicted and that the absence of a criminal record . .
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedRegina v Shippey and Jedynak 1988
The defendants were tried for rape. The defence pleaded no case to answer saying that the complainant’s evidence was weak uncorroborated and inconsistent.
Held: The judge should assess the evidence and if the evidence of the witness upon whom . .
CitedRegina v Richardson CACD 9-May-1991
The applicant had given no evidence at trial and agreed that witnesses who might have assisted him should not be called. He had not been honest with his legal representatives at trial.
Held: McCowan LJ said: ‘On the one hand, this is a case of . .
CitedRegina v Criminal Cases Review Commission ex parte Pearson 1999
The applicant was convicted of murder and her application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed. She later asked that her case be referred to the court of appeal on the ground of diminished responsibility, a ground not put forward . .
CitedRegina v Borthwick CACD 18-May-1998
Prior to the trial the appellant had been examined by a psychiatrist, but he refused to allow a more detailed examination to be undertaken and pleaded not guilty on the basis that he denied responsibility for the killing. He was convicted. Shortly . .
CitedRegina v Turner (Terence) CACD 1974
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He admitted that he had killed his girlfriend with a hammer, but sought to bring psychiatric evidence that he was susceptible to provocation.
Held: The law jealously guards the role of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2021; Ref: scu.237566

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.
2228/06, [2008] ECHR 2, 26766/05
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Justice Act 1988
Human Rights
Citing:
At CACDAl-Khawaja v Regina CACD 3-Nov-2005
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 . .

Cited by:
See AlsoAl-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 . .
See AlsoAl-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 . .
See AlsoAl-Khawaja v The United Kingdom; Tahery v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2011
(Grand Chamber) The claimants complained of the use against them of hearsay evidence in their trials.
Held: ‘the underlying principle is that the defendant in a criminal trial should have an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence . .
CitedHorncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.264296