Regina v Gogana: CACD 12 Jul 1999

Where an appeal was based upon a witness who having once given evidence wished to given evidence to a different effect, it was now clear that full affidavit evidence as to the circumstances in which the new evidence had been obtained and from all involved.

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85275

Regina v Byron: CACD 10 Mar 1999

A description of a suspect given by a witness is not itself an identification. Where an identification parade has not been held and therefore there is no admissible identification of the defendant, such evidence of description remains admissible.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85158

Regina v Derodara: CACD 16 Jul 1999

The maker of a statement need not be the person who creates a statement. It may be the person on whose behalf the statements are asserted as true is the maker. Here a police report based on the defendant’s false statements as to the date of a burglary were admitted as evidence in a case alleging a false declaration as part of an obtaining of a pecuniary advantage by deception.

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1999

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 16(1) 23 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85223

H and Others v Regina: CACD 21 Dec 2018

The crown sought to adduce additional evidence on the defendant’s appeal of the content of discussions between the defendant and a social worker from the council youth offending service.
Held: The evidence should not be admitted. Such conversations were not akin to statements made during the preparation of a pre-sentence report, and were privileged. The Court said that it would only order such confidential discussions to be disclosed if there was a very good reason, because it would be contrary to public policy to do so.
‘Firstly, it would in our view be contrary to public policy to breach the confidentiality of discussions of the kind save for very good reason. Such discussions are not subject to privilege in the sense that something a defendant or appellant tells his lawyers would be; and the internal rules of Camden social services (or of any other local authority’s officers) are not binding in the courts; but we regard them as well drafted, sensible and worthy of respect. There is a distinction between disclosure necessary to avoid imminent future criminality (in particular a threat to someone’s life or safety) and the obtaining of admissions to past offences. It would be extremely unfortunate if convicted defendants (whether young or adult) were deterred from speaking to those charged with their supervision or rehabilitation until any appeal against conviction had been dealt with.’

Judges:

Bean LJ, McGowan J, Judge Dean QC

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2868, [2019] WLR(D) 29, [2019] 1 WLR 3744

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLancashire County Council v E and F FD 4-Feb-2020
The court heard an application to set aside a witness summons, raising an important issue about the circumstances in which disclosure can be resisted on grounds of a religious duty of confidentiality, in the context of allegations of child sexual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.633138

Bhatti 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 Act.
Held: The appeals failed. The defendants had expressly agreed in their credit applications and finance agreements that their data could be shared for the purpose of crime detection, prevention and prosecution. That was sufficient basis for the officers to obtain and use the data, and they had not needed to rely on the 1984 Act. It was lawfully obtained and fairly used.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Simon, Patterson JJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 1305, [2015] WLR(D) 346

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Data Protection Act 1998 29(1), Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Griffiths and Others CCA 1965
A supplier of lime and his employee were accused of conspiring with seven farmers to defraud the Ministry by submitting excessive subsidy claims. They were also charged with fraudulently obtaining money from the Ministry. There was no evidence that . .
See AlsoBhatti 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: . .
CitedRegina v Greenfield CACD 1973
Where a general conspiracy is charged in a single count, it is not bad for duplicity only because the evidence offered to prove it includes proof of the subsidiary conspiracies entered into in carrying out the general conspiracy. Duplicity is a . .
CitedMehta v Regina CACD 31-Dec-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to defraud. His co-defendant and alleged co-conspirator had been acquitted.
Held: The appeal against conviction failed. The defence knew that they were going to have to deal with the . .
CitedDhall v Regina CACD 27-Sep-2013
The appellant said that his conviction for assisting breaches of immigration law in his work as an immigration adviser by creating false documentation to support clients’ applications for extensions of leave to stay was not itself an allegation of . .
CitedSerious Fraud Office v Papachristos and Another CACD 19-Sep-2014
The applicants challenged their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to corrupt. They owned a company manufacturing fuel additives. Technology developments meant that they came under increasing pressure on sales. They were said to have entered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Information, Police

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.551037

Mittal v Regina: CACD 26 Apr 2016

The defendant, a doctor, stood accused of theft. The prosecutor wanted to have admitted evidence of a previous warning given in Scotland for a shoplifting incident. The court agreed to exclude it until and unless the defence sought to bring evidence of good character.
Held: The appeal failed. Whilst the approach had its difficulties, it had not undermined the safety of the conviction.

Judges:

McCombe LJ, McGowan J, Judge Collier QC

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Crim 451, [2016] WLR(D) 213, [2016] 2 Cr App R 8, [2016] 4 WLR 91

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.562924

Faraz 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 to that allegedly disseminated by the appellant, for the purpose of considering whether the material comprised ‘a terrorist publication’

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Kenneth Parker J, Gilbet QC HHJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2820, [2013] WLR(D) 1, [2013] 1 WLR 2615, [2013] 1 Cr App R 29

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Terrorism Act 2006 2(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWang 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.467636

Murphy, Regina v: CACD 12 Feb 2020

Appeal against conviction, raising issues as to the proper application of s.100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: the admission of a non-defendant’s bad character. In this case, a defence witness.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Crim 137

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 100

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Crime, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.647457

Regina v Popat: CACD 23 Mar 1998

Though an identification parade should be held whenever it would serve a useful purpose, where the evidence of identification by a witness was already complete and satisfactory there was no continuing obligation on the police to provide an identification parade.

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 1035, [1998] 2 Cr App R 208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Quinn CACD 15-Mar-1994
Police must follow the published Code of Practice, when conducting identity parades, and may not substitute their own. If the evidence is allowed in despite the breach, the judge should explain the significance of the breach to the jury, as it may . .
See alsoRegina v Popat (No 2) CACD 2-Sep-1999
The case of R v Popat had not been overruled by R v Forbes, which had been decided unfortunately. The obligation to hold an identity parade was not absolute. There are other factors which can be relied upon to make the obligation indeterminate. . .

Cited by:

Renewed appealRegina v Popat (No 2) CACD 2-Sep-1999
The case of R v Popat had not been overruled by R v Forbes, which had been decided unfortunately. The obligation to hold an identity parade was not absolute. There are other factors which can be relied upon to make the obligation indeterminate. . .
CitedJohn v The State PC 16-Mar-2009
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The evidence against him was of identification by a man, also criminally involved, who had been given immunity. No identification parade was held.
Held: It was clear from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Crime

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.153909

Regina v Keast: CACD 5 Nov 1997

The defendant appealed several convictions for sexual assault against his step-daughters. He said that evidence of her demeanour had been wrongly admitted.
Held: The distress of a complainant shortly after or at the time of an allegation of rape or indecent assault could be admitted to show consistency with the description of the incident given by the victim, but it could not be regarded as confirming the victim’s story from an independent source. As to long-term demeanour however, the court stated that, where the sexual abuse was alleged to have taken place over a period of time it would be difficult to attribute evidence of the victim’s demeanour to that sexual abuse, although it might be admitted for the purpose of showing that the victim’s account had not been recently invented. The court added that to allow evidence of demeanour to be given merely to show consistency or inconsistency with the complainant’s account obscured the fact that, unless there were some concrete basis for regarding the demeanour and state of mind described by the witnesses as confirming or disproving that sexual abuse had occurred, it could not assist a jury bringing their common sense to bear on who was telling the truth. The court nonetheless held that the admission of the evidence of demeanour did not render the appellant’s conviction unsafe because the judge had clearly directed the jury that the evidence concerning demeanour in no way confirmed what she had said.

Judges:

Lord Justice Beldam, Mr Justice Ognall, and Mr Justice Poole

Citations:

[1998] Crim LR 748, [1997] EWCA Crim 2828

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.152283

Regina v Hersey: CACD 1 Dec 1997

The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery, which had been based in part on witnesses identifying his voice. Particular concern was raised where a series of recordings had been brought together from which the witness had been asked to identify the voice of the criminal. The defendant complained that none of the other voices had a sufficient resemblance to his own, and that his expert’s evidence had been excluded.
Held: The judge’s decisions were in the nature of discretions. The decisions were proper and the evidence admissible. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 3106, (1998) Crim LR 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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 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 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 . .

Cited by:

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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.152561

Regina v Roberts and Roberts: CACD 2 May 1998

The two defendants appealed convictions for assault. Police officers made statements, but then at the request of the defence produced video evidence. The police officer who prepared the commentary on the video had amended his statement in the light of the video. The defendants complained that the officer should not have been allowed event to see the video before the trial.
Held: The appeals failed. Witnesses may be allowed to refresh their memory from a video of a scene, but the procedures to be followed must be clear and fair. The purpose of the procedure is to assist the witness to remember what happened and to make sure his statement was correct from that video evidence. Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘it seems to us plain that the duty of any witness when giving a statement is to describe the relevant events to the best of his or her honest recollection and certainly not to invent or fabricate evidence to assist the prosecution or the defence. If, after the giving of such a statement, a relevant video comes to light, it is not in our judgment wrong in principle that the witness should be permitted to see that video. On seeing it the witness may find that in some respects his or her recollection had been at fault, and the witness may wish to correct or modify earlier evidence. It is however in our view a matter of the utmost importance that nothing should be done which amounts to rehearsing the evidence of a witness, or coaching the witness so as to encourage the witness to alter the evidence originally given. The acid test is whether the procedure adopted in any particular case is such as to taint the resulting evidence. It is, we would stress, necessary to preserve equality of arms so that facilities are not made available to the prosecution which are not made available to the defence. On the prosecution side we see no reason to distinguish between police and non-police witnesses. They should be treated the same. ‘

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Brian Smedley J, Thomas J

Citations:

Times 02-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 1193

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.88596

Regina v Land: CACD 10 Oct 1997

No expert medical evidence is needed with regard to the age of a child said to be the subject of an indecent photograph. Whether it is a child is not outside normal experience. The defendant had seen the photographs, and no defence was available under 1(4)(b).

Citations:

Gazette 05-Nov-1997, Times 04-Nov-1997, [1999] QB 65, [1997] EWCA Crim 2409, [1998] 1 Cr App R 301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Children Act 1978 1(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedRegina v Collier CACD 11-Jun-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of indecent pseudo-photographs of children. He said that he had not seen the image, and that though he had reason to know the images were indecent, he had no reason to know that they were of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.87116

Regina v Morris: CACD 22 Oct 1997

An allegation of assault occasioning bodily harm, where the harm alleged was of a purely psychological nature, must be supported by psychiatric evidence.

Judges:

Potter LJ, Foster, Ebsworth JJ

Citations:

Times 13-Nov-1997, Gazette 12-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 2564

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Chan-Fook CACD 15-Nov-1993
‘Actual bodily harm’ under the 1861 Act, may include injury to any part of the body, including internal organs, the nervous system and the brain. It is capable of including psychiatric injury, but not mere emotion such as fear, distress or panic. . .
CitedRegina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Crime

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.87388

Friend, Regina v: CACD 26 Mar 1997

‘The appeal primarily raises novel points arising out of s.35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984 which in essence provides that if the mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence no adverse inference may be drawn from his failure to give evidence.’

Judges:

Otton LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 816, [1997] 2 Cr App R 231, [1997] 1 WLR 1433, [1997] 2 All ER 101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.465426

Regina v Balogun: CACD 17 Dec 1996

The defendant appealed convictions for importing cocaine. There had been admitted a letter written to her which was strongly suggestive of her being involved in drug smuggling. She claimed that any relevance was drowned in the prejudicial effect of the letter. The letter was introduced as real evidence, not to show the truth of its contents. However the court felt that the prejudice was overwhelming, and the conviction was set aside.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1731

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149395

Regina v Hussain, Khan: CACD 20 Jan 1997

The defendants appealed convictions for importing drugs. They chose not to give evidence. At one point, in the presence of the jury, the judge spoke to counsel about warning the defendants of the ‘potential’ inferences, but the defendants had been arraigned before the new rules had come into effect. He acknowledged his mistake, and later addressed the jury in proper terms about the failure to give evidence.
Held: That was sufficient to correct the error.
The defendants had also complained at the admission of evidence derived from telephone intercepts. The court was satisfied that the guidelines had been observed, and additionally that the judge was right to admit the evidence.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Crim 107

Statutes:

Telecommunication Act 1985, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149562

Regina 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 on interview.
Held: Rose LJ gave examples of where a solicitor’s advice to remain silent may be readily understood. He said: ‘Good reason may well arise if, for example, the interviewing officer has disclosed to a solicitor little or nothing of the nature of the case against the defendant, so that the solicitor cannot usefully advise his client.’

Judges:

Rose LJ, Astill J, Dyer J

Citations:

[1997] Crim LR 449, [1997] EWCA Crim 118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 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 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 . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.149573

Regina v Beedles: CACD 31 Jul 1996

The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. The issue was whether a note written by the complainant to her teacher was admissible as evidence of recent complaint to corroborate her statement. Similar allegations had been made against him in Scotland, but he had not been convicted. He said that evidence of those complaints should not have been admitted.
Held: The letter constituted a complaint and was therefore admissible as evidence of recent complaint under the exception. The fact that the complaints had been made in Scotland said nothing about the truth or otherwise of them. The issue was their relevance and probative value. Counsel had allowed a tape to be played where the allegations were mentioned and without objection. There was no basis for criticising the judge’s direction. The conviction stood, but the sentence had been based in part on the other allegations, and was reduced.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 740

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Lillyman CCCR 1896
Evidence of a contemporaneous complaint by the complainant to her employer was admitted against objections that such evidence ought not to be admitted and the evidence should be confined merely to the fact of the complaint. The evidence of the . .
CitedJones v South Eastern and Chatham Railway 1918
There is a ‘general rule of evidence that statements may be used against a witness as admissions but that you are not entitled to give evidence of statements on other occasions by the witness in confirmation of the testimony.’ . .
CitedGillie v Posho 1939
The court discussed the rule that a witness’ statement outside court may be used against him but not generally to support the truth of his statement. . .
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 Brooks CACD 1992
. .
CitedRex v Ball HL 1911
Evidence of sexual acts or advances other than those which are the subject of the charge is frequently adduced to show the true nature of the relationship between the parties, a practice which may be regarded as an acceptable and inevitable form of . .
CitedRegina v Flack CACD 1969
The court admitted evidence of previous indecency with an alleged victim of incest. . .
CitedRegina v Rearden CACD 1984
A series of rapes on a child was regarded as one continuing offence for evidence purposes. . .
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 . .
CitedRex v Bond 1906
The court considered the rule excluding evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Kennedy J said: ‘The general rule cannot be applied where the facts which constitute distinct offences are at the same time part of the transaction which is the . .
CitedRegina v Neale CACD 1977
Neale and Burr were jointly charged with arson and manslaughter. N wanted to adduce evidence, either by cross-examining prosecution witnesses or leading evidence himself, that B had admitted that he had started fires himself on four other occasions. . .
CitedRegina v Berry 1963
The defendant appealed a conviction for the violent stabbing of his ex-girlfriend.
Held: Evidence of past incidents should not be regarded as relevant to prove the state of mind with which a particular act (in that case was done. . .
CitedRegina v Fulcher CACD 1995
The previous non-accidental injuries sustained by the baby whom F was alleged to have murdered were relevant to show not only that the child, being in pain, was more likely to be fractious, but also how F was likely to react to the child crying. The . .
CitedRegina v Williams CACD 1986
The defendant was charged with threatening to kill.
Held: Evidence of previous threatening and violent conduct of Williams towards the victim was rightly admitted to establish an intention on the part of the defendant that the victim should . .
CitedRegina v Pettman CACD 2-May-1985
Background evidence is admissible ‘Where it is necessary to place before the jury evidence of part of a continual background of history relevant to the offence charged in the indictment and without the totality of which the account placed before the . .
CitedRegina v Stevens CACD 1995
S was charged with the murder of a woman with whom he had been living.
Held: Evidence of previous occasions on which he had assaulted her were properly admitted as part of the background. . .
CitedRegina v Sidhu CACD 22-Feb-1993
The defendant was accused of explosives offences relating to his promotion of the cause of Sikhism through membership of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which promoted an independent Sikh state. The jury considered a video recording of the appellant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148404

Regina v Duguid: CACD 24 Oct 1996

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery. He had been advised not to give evidence for fear of allowing into evidence a previous conviction. He said that advice was bad.
Held: That advice was bad in law. His explanation that he was concerned at having cannabis whilst on licence would not have led to the nature of his conviction being put to the court. A retrial was ordered.

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Crim 1197

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.148861

Regina v Foxley: CACD 9 Feb 1995

Written statements can be admissible at trial with the protections given by the section without being supported by oral evidence. An inference of the personal knowledge of the maker of statement is permissible.

Citations:

Ind Summary 03-Apr-1995, Times 09-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 523

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1)(ii)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVehicle and Operator Services Agency v George Jenkins Transport Ltd Admn 20-Nov-2003
The prosecutor Agency appealed by way of case stated against a decision refusing to allow them to admit documentary evidence.
Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the court took the opportunity to say that a case stated did not need as in this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.88460

Regina v Major Sandhu: CACD 10 Dec 1996

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he had obtained.
Held: The offence was one of strict liability, and guilt did not depend upon any mens rea. However the prosecution had added evidence that the defendant intended to break the regulations. He had complained that this evidence was not intending to prove any necessary part of the offence and was merely prejudicial. The judge’s reasoning was unsound. Evidence which went to prove elements beyond the necessary elements of the offence and which was prejudicial was not admissible.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Sachs, Toulson JJ

Citations:

Times 02-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Crim 1677, [1998] 1 PLR 17

Statutes:

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 7 9, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEast Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson Admn 18-Apr-2008
The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87670

Regina v Saunders and Others: CACD 28 Nov 1995

The absence of the protection of a rule against self-incrimination under the company law questioning procedure, didn’t make the use an admission in criminal proceedings unfair. DTI Inspectors may continue their inquiries after it has become clear that offences have been committed provided the caution is given.

Citations:

Independent 28-Nov-1995, Times 28-Nov-1995, Gazette 15-Dec-1995

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87673

Regina v Rankin: CACD 5 Sep 1995

The Court of Appeal was not to overturn a Judge’s decision with regard to identification evidence in the absence of any lurking doubt. The admission of evidence goes only to fairness within trial, not unreliability.

Citations:

Ind Summary 09-Oct-1995, Times 05-Sep-1995

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87595

Regina v Lockley; Regina v Corah: CACD 15 Jun 1995

On a retrial, evidence from a transcript of the first trial is admissible. The alleged confession to a cell mate who boasted of deceptiveness is to be supported in court.

Citations:

Independent 15-Jun-1995, Times 27-Jun-1995

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87207

Regina v Makanjuola: CACD 17 May 1995

Guidance was given on the directions to be given to the jury where a co-accused speaks for prosecution as a witness and in sexual assault cases. The full corroboration warning is not now needed; the Judge may use his own discretion, and may give a lesser direction if he chooses. In this case there was no evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the complainant was unreliable.
Lord Taylor LCJ said: ‘(1) it was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion whether or not to give a warning to the jury in respect of the unsupported evidence of [a] complainant in a sexual case. The nature of the warning and whether or not to give it would depend upon the circumstances of the case, the issues raised and the content and quality of the witness’s evidence. (2) There would need to be an evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the witness was unreliable, which did not include mere suggestions by cross-examining counsel. (3) If the question arose whether a special warning should be given, it was desirable that the question be resolved by discussion with counsel in the jury’s absence before final speeches . . (5) Where some warning is required, it will be for the judge to decide the strength and terms of the warning; it does not have to be invested with the whole florid regime of the old corroboration rules. (6) The court will only interfere with the judge’s exercise of his discretion if it is unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.’ As to retrospectivity ‘The general rule against the retrospective operation of statutes does not apply to procedural provisions . . . Indeed the general presumption is that a statutory change in procedure applies to pending as well as future proceedings.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor LCJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-1995, Independent 06-Jun-1995, Times 17-May-1995, (1995) 2 Cr App R 469, [1995] 1 WLR 1348, [1995] 3 All ER 730

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Warner CACD 17-Feb-1997
The defendant appealed convictions for indecent assault, saying that convictions on some counts and acquittals on others were so inconsistent as to call the convictions into question, showing acceptance of the complainant’s evidence on some counts . .
CitedRegina v Gellatly, JR CACD 22-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed against convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault against the daughters of his partner. The allegations were that serious sexual assaults had been repeated over several years. The defendant denied them . .
CitedRegina v B CACD 15-May-1997
The Court upheld a conviction in respect of an Appellant who had been convicted of three offences on a six-count indictment. He was acquitted of the other three. In respect of each of the six counts the Prosecution relied upon the uncorroborated . .
CitedBradley, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The defendant complained that his criminal record had been placed before the jury under the Act, even though the proceedings had been begun before the commencement date.
Held: The provisions of the Act were procedural in nature and therefore . .
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 . .
CitedClibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary, to refuse his application for compensation. He had first been convicted and imprisoned and then had his conviction quashed. The respondent did not think that the conviction was . .
CitedMisick, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 1-May-2009
The former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands sought to challenge the constitutionality of the 2009 order which was to allow suspension of parts of the Constitution and imposing a direct administration, on a final report on alleged corruption. . .
CitedRegina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary CACD 22-Nov-2002
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable.
Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87247

Regina v H (Evidence: Corroboration); Regina v Hepburn: CACD 2 Mar 1994

The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assault on his daughter and stepdaughter. The prosecution relied upon the allegatins as similar fact evidence. The complainants denied collaboration and concoction.
Held: The jury should decide first if the complainants have colluded before being asked to assess whether their accounts were corroboration for each other. Nevertheless the appeal failed. The assessment of the reliability of the witnesses, was essentially one for the jury not the judge, and he had been correct to leave the question to the jury.

Citations:

Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 02-Mar-1994, Independent 25-Feb-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 809

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedRegina v Johanssen CACD 1978
. .
Not FollowedRegina v Ananthanarayanan CACD 11-Mar-1993
The defendant appealed against his conviction for indecent assault. He complained that the judge had in effect left to the jury the question of whether the evidence of the two accusers was contaminated.
Held: His appeal succeeded. It was for . .
FollowedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hester CACD 1972
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v H (Evidence: Corroboration) HL 25-May-1995
The fact that there may have been a possibility of collusion is not sufficient to stop the admission of similar fact evidence by way of corroboration. ‘ . . the function of the trial judge is not to decide as an intellectual process whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86784

Regina v Dragic: CACD 7 Mar 1996

Written evidence of a severely and chronically ill witness who was unable to attend and give oral evidence was rightly admitted. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The fact that there is no ability to cross-examine, that the witness who is absent is the only evidence against the accused and that his evidence is identification evidence is not sufficient to render the admission of written evidence from that witness contrary to the interests of justice or unfair to the defendant per se. What matters in our judgment, is the content of the statement and the circumstances of the particular case.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-1996, (1996) 2 CAR 232

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86581

Regina v E (Sexual Abuse: Delay): CACD 6 Jul 1995

There are no fixed rules for the form of or need for warnings to be given as regards the prejudice to a defendant in sex abuse cases where there has been a long delay after the events complained of. It was a matter for the judge in each case.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86601

Regina 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 traditional category of those qualified to give expert opinion. Whether or not the tag is appropriate, we are clearly of the view that PC Fitzpatrick had ‘special knowledge that the Court did not possess’ . . PC Fitzpatrick had acquired the knowledge by lengthy and studious application to material which was itself admissible evidence. To afford the jury the time and facilities to conduct the same research would be utterly impracticable. Accordingly, it was in our judgment legitimate to allow the officer to assist the jury by pointing to what he asserted was happening in the crowded scenes on the film. He was open to cross-examination, and the jury, after proper direction and warnings, were free either to accept or reject his assertions.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ

Citations:

Independent 07-Apr-1995, Times 07-Apr-1995, Gazette 03-May-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 333

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86386

Regina 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.

Citations:

Ind Summary 30-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 420

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Hersey CACD 1-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery, which had been based in part on witnesses identifying his voice. Particular concern was raised where a series of recordings had been brought together from which the witness had been asked to . .
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 . .
CitedAtkins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86392

Regina 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 supporting charge of doing them.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Dyson J Timothy Walker J

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 207

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Wright and Ormerod CACD 1990
The defendants were charged with indecent assault on a child of 5, who said that the defendants had hurt her in the back and said naughty things to her. The Judge also admitted evidence from the child’s mother of the complaint the child had made to . .
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 . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86079

Regina v Bailey: CACD 26 Jan 1995

A confession made by a mentally handicapped person to a non-independent witness should only be admitted into evidence after a proper warning was agreed to be given to the jury.

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-1995

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86084

Regina v Barnes (Anthony): CACD 6 Jul 1995

Identification evidence from separate complainants was properly to be accumulated together if one offender was known in sexual assault cases if one person was claimed to be responsible for all the attacks, and the jury was satisfied that it was a series of assaults.

Citations:

Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 14-Aug-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Brown, Wilson, Mcmillan and McClean CACD 31-Jul-1996
Identification on one set of offences was said to be less than sufficient on its own to secure a conviction. Further identification evidence bound the defendants to a related offence. The judge brought them together, and the defence appealed saying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86094

Regina 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 as a result of provocation. It is incumbent on the defence to at least raise some evidence of provocation before the trial judge is obliged to deal with this issue in his summing up.

Judges:

Lord Justice Hirst, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Mitchell

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1996, [1997] 2 Cr App R 94

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86031

Regina v Adams: CACD 26 Apr 1996

The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape. There had been a DNA match, but the defendant did not match the description given by the victim, and she had not picked him out. He argued that DNA evidence alone should not be used to convict, and that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the use of statistical evidence. The court considered how DNA evidence might be presented to a jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a decision was to follow as to a retrial.
The use of statistical theory in support of a case is to be discouraged in criminal trials: ‘To introduce Bayes Theorem, or any similar method, into a criminal trial plunges the Jury into inappropriate and unnecessary realms of theory and complexity deflecting them from their proper task.’
The court considered the error of seeking to use probability in a criminal court. Rose LJ said: ‘More fundamentally, however, the attempt to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of a mathematical formula, applied to each separate piece of evidence, is simply inappropriate to the jury’s task. Jurors evaluate evidence and reach a conclusion not by means of a formula, mathematical or otherwise, but by the joint application of their individual common sense and knowledge of the world to the evidence before them. It is common for them to have to evaluate scientific evidence, both as to its quality and as to its relationship with other evidence. Scientific evidence tendered as proof of a particular fact may establish that fact to an extent which, in any particular case, may vary between slight possibility and virtual certainty. For example, different blood spots on an accused’s clothing may, on testing, reveal a range of conclusions from ‘human blood’ via ‘possibly the victim’s blood’ to ‘highly likely to be the victim’s blood’. Such evidence is susceptible to challenge as to methodology and otherwise, which may weaken or even, in some cases, strengthen the impact of the evidence. But we have never heard it suggested that a jury should consider the relationship between such scientific evidence and other evidence by reference to probability formulas. That such a course would in any event be impossible of sensible achievement by a jury, at least so far as the use of the Bayes theorem is concerned, is demonstrated by the practical application of the stage of that theorem’s methodology that involves numerical assessment of the various items of evidence. Individual jurors might differ greatly not only according to how cogent they found a particular piece of evidence (which would be a matter for discussion and debate between the jury as a whole), but also on the question of what percentage figure for probability should be placed on that evidence. Since, as we have pointed out, the translation of an assessment of cogency into a percentage probability of guilt is entirely a matter of judgment and the conferring of a percentage probability of guilt upon one item of evidence taken in isolation is an essentially artificial operation, different jurors might well wish to select different numerical figures even when they were broadly agreed on the weight of the evidence in question. They could, presumably, only resolve any such difference by taking an average, which would truly reflect neither party’s view; and this point leaves aside the even greater difficulty of how twelve jurors, applying Bayes as a single jury, are to reconcile, under the mathematics of that formula, differing individual views about the cogency of particular pieces of evidence. ‘

Judges:

Rose, Hidden, Buxton LJJ

Citations:

Times 09-May-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 222, [1996] 2 Cr App R 467, [1996] Crim LR 898, [1996] 2 Cr App Rep 467

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86032

Ibrahim, 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 applied, and in relation to count 1, the appellant did not have a fair trial and his rights under Article 6(1) were infringed.
In order to assess the question of whether a defendant has received a fair trial it was necessary to resolve (1) whether there was proper justification for admitting the untested hearsay evidence of the complainant under domestic law (in that case under section 116(1) and (2)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003); (2) how important the statements were in relation to the Crown’s case; (3) whether the statements were demonstrably reliable; and (4) whether counter-balancing safeguards had been properly applied. The more central the untested hearsay evidence, the greater the need for scrutiny of the reliability of the evidence and the proper application of counter-balancing safeguards.

Judges:

Aikens, LJ, Field J and HHJ Cooke QC

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 837, [2012] 2 Cr App R 3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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 . .

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, Human Rights

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.453066

Jefferies, Regina (on The Application of) v St Albans Crown Court and Another: Admn 15 Feb 2012

The claimant requested that the Crown court state a case. He had been convicted under the 1986 Act after remonstrating with the lady driver of another car. She had locked her doors and remained seated at all time. The court had refused to admit into evidence her previous convictions saying that they were irrelevant. The Court had refused.
Held: Review was refused. The nature of the convictions did not go as to cerdibility, and the convictions had been correctly excluded.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 338 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986, Criminal Justice Act 2003 100(1)

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452680

Regina v Z (Prior Acquittal): CACD 14 Dec 1999

Where a defendant has previously been acquitted of an offence, the prosecution was not merely prevented from issuing a complaint based upon the same facts, but also was not able to present the facts alleged before a later court as evidence of similar fact. The prosecution was not able to selectively interpret the verdicts of juries in earlier cases.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.85622

The 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.

Judges:

Higgins LJ, Girvan LJ and Sir John Sheil

Citations:

[2011] NICA 61

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPublic 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.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451591

Regina v Ward, Andrews, Broadley: CACD 20 Dec 2000

Hearsay evidence that the accused was present at the scene of a crime might be admissible subject to appropriate directions being given to secure the safety of that admission. The court could direct that only if the circumstances surrounding the statement could justify weight being given to the statement should the statement be relied upon.

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Crim 80

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.158730

Regina v Hardwicke and Thwaites: CACD 10 Nov 2000

Malpractice or entrapment by those outside the legal system was not to be considered in the same way as such behaviour by those who had a formal part in the investigation of crime. That a journalist might encourage a crime for a story should not necessarily lead to exclusion of the evidence. The journalist’s crime was venial in comparison to that of the appellants, and their behaviour would not undermine trust as would similar behaviour in law enforcement officers.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Justice Alliott and Justice Bell

Citations:

Times 16-Nov-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 60

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Media, Crime

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.158710

Jude v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 23 Nov 2011

The Lord Advocate appealed against three decisions as to the use to be made of interviews where the detainees had not been given access to lawyers. In each case the prosecutor now appealed after their convictions had been overturned in the light of the decision in Cadder.
Held: (Lord Kerr dissenting) The prosecutor’s appeals failed. No time bar applied under section 100 of the 1998 Act. Criminal appeals under section 57(2) were made by virtue of the 1998 Act. The legislation distinguished beween bringing proceedings on the basis of Convention rights, and relying on them ‘in any such proceedings.
In two cases the appeals failed, but the defendant Birnie had been offered and had declined legal assistance at the police station, and the appeal by HMA succeeded.
Lord Kerr dissentimng, said: ‘For a waiver to the right to legal assistance to be effective, there must be a knowing and intelligent decision to waive the right. I do not understand the majority in this case to suggest otherwise.’

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Lord Hamilton

Citations:

[2011] UKSC 55, 2012 SCCR 88, 2012 SLT 75, 2011 GWD 38-779, 2012 SCL 130, UKSC 2011/0150

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 14 15, European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(c) 6(1), Scotland Act 1998 57(2) 100(3B)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal fromJude and Others v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 11-May-2011
. .
CitedCadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 26-Oct-2010
Statement without lawyer access was inadmissible
The accused complained that he had been convicted for assault and breach of the peace on the basis of a statement made by him during an interview with the police where, under the 1995 Act, he had been denied access to a lawyer.
Held: The . .
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 . .
CitedMcGowan (Procurator Fiscal) v B SC 23-Nov-2011
The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
Held: It was not incompatible with . .
CitedMartin v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the law extending the power of Sheriffs sitting alone to impose sentences of up to one year.
Held: The defendants’ appeal failed (Lord Rodger and Lord Kerr dissenting). The change was within the power of the Scottish . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedManuel v HM Advocate HCJ 25-Jun-1958
In order to be found to be voluntarily given, a suspect’s statement must have been freely given and not given in response to pressure or inducement and not elicited by questioning other than what is directed simply to elucidating what has been said. . .

Cited by:

CitedSaunders v Regina CACD 26-Jun-2012
The defendant sought leave to appeal after a ruling that her refusal to take legal advice during police interview had been informed and voluntary. The interviewing officer had adopted a policy of always giving disclosure where the suspect was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448487

Chan Wei Keung v The Queen: PC 7 Nov 1966

(Hong Kong) The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He complained as to the adequacy of the judge’s directions to the jury.
Held: On a voir dire as to the admissibility of a defendant’s challenged statement, the prosecution should not ask questions in cross-examination of the defendant with the object of establishing the truth of the statement. When a statement is ruled inadmissible as contrary to the common law rule, evidence of what was said during the voir dire is inadmissible. Counsel for the defendant must have the opportunity to air the circumstances around the making of the statement before the jury.

Judges:

Hodson, Pearce, Pearson LL

Citations:

[1967] 2 AC 160, [1966] UKPC 25, (1967) 51 Cr App R 257, [1967] 1 All ER 948, [1967] 2 WLR 552, (1967) 51 Cr App Rep 257

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445111

Mawaz Khan Alias Fazal Karim and Amanat Khan v The Queen: PC 7 Nov 1966

(Hong Kong) The defendants appealed from their convictions for murder complaining of the admission in evidence against each other of statements made in the absence of the other, saying that this amounted to hearsay.

Citations:

[1966] UKPC 26, [1967] 1 AC 454, [1967] 1 All ER 80, [1966] 3 WLR 1275

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445112

Regina v Cambridge: CACD 2 Aug 2011

Judges:

Laws LJ,Openshaw, Hickinbottom JJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 2009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444839

Butler v Director of Public Prosecutions: CACD 20 Dec 2000

Where an officer was told in the police station of a medical reason why the suspect should not provide a sample of blood, and had had to suspend the procedure, the officer should ensure that the same information should be provided to the hospital. The defendant asserted that he suffered from ‘immune system breakdown’. The officer had a clear duty to pass on information which might have a direct relevance to the taking of a specimen of blood at the hospital.

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Crim 76

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.158726

Orde v O’Donovan and Another: CANI 2 Feb 2006

Admissibility of verbal statements made, without a caution, by the appellants to police officers when investigating accidents to the effect that they had been the drivers of the vehicles involved.

Judges:

Campbell LJ, Sheil LJ and Coghlin J

Citations:

[2006] NICA 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.266772

Regina v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) (Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999): HL 19 Dec 2000

The provisions of the Code of Practice regarding identification parades are mandatory and additional unwritten conditions are not to be inserted. Where there was an identification and the suspect challenged that identification, and consented to the parade, the parade must be held. There is nothing in the words of code of practice to allow police officers not to hold an identification parades where the identification was considered to be already completed. There is nothing in the code to justify a distinction as to quality of identification evidence between that of a police officer and of a member of the public. In the past, identification which had received complete and unequivocal acceptance had proved to be the source of miscarriages of justice. Once a breach of the Codes was found, the trial judge must deal with this in his summing up in words which were appropriate to the situation. Nevertheless, in this case there had been a prior unequivocal identification. Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘If an eye-witness of a criminal incident makes plain to the police that he cannot identify the culprit, it will very probably be futile to invite that witness to attend an identification parade. If an eye-witness may be able to identify clothing worn by a culprit but not the culprit himself, it will probably be futile to mount an identification parade rather than simply inviting the witness to identify the clothing. If a case is one of pure recognition of someone well-known to the eye-witness, it may again be futile to hold an identification parade. But save in cases such as these, or other exceptional circumstances, the effect of paragraph 2.3 is clear: if (a) the police have sufficient information to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in an offence, and (b) an eye-witness has identified or may be able to identify that person, and (c) the suspect disputes his identification as a person involved in the commission of that offence, an identification parade must be held if (d) the suspect consents and (e) paragraphs 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of Code D do not apply.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2000, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2000] UKHL 66, [2000] 1 CAR 430 (HL), [2001] 1 AC 473, [2001] 1 Crim App R 430, [2001] 2 WLR 1, [2001] 1 All ER 686

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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:

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, . .
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 . .
AppliedMcKenna v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Apr-2005
The defendant appealed a conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He said that an officer’s identification of him should have been excluded from evidence because no identification parade had been held.
Held: A parade should have been held: . .
CitedRegina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
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. . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.88458

Regina v Jones; Regina v Nelson: CACD 26 Mar 1999

Police officers have no power to use reasonable force, to compel a suspect to undergo an identification by confrontation. Powers generally phrased in the Act did not override an individual suspect’s rights. Beldam LJ said that the requirement that reasonable force may be used to secure conditions of detention does not authorise the use of force to bring about a confrontation.

Citations:

Times 21-Apr-1999, Gazette 06-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 867

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 117; Code D

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Meaden Admn 1-Dec-2003
The defendant had been charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The prosecutor appealed a finding of no case to answer. He had been present in a house when the police executed search warrants. He had refused to obey an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Police

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.157267

Regina v Loveridge, Regina v Lee; Regina v Loveridge: CACD 11 Apr 2001

The police took secret videos of defendants whilst in the cells at the local Magistrates Court. The prosecution later sought to use the videos in identifying the defendants as participants in another crime. The filming was both unlawful under the Act, and an improper invasion of their privacy. The making of a video was included within the taking of a photograph under the Act. The filming was a breach of the defendants’ article 8 human rights. Nevertheless, the infringement did not affect the fairness of the eventual proceedings, and accordingly the evidence was properly admitted, and the convictions stood.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ, Douglas Brown, Astill JJ

Citations:

Times 03-May-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 973

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1925 41, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoLoveridge and Others v Regina CACD 11-Apr-2001
. .

Cited by:

CitedGood Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.88546

Turner v Regina: CACD 9 May 2013

The defendant appealed from his conviction of murder. He complained that the judge should not have admitted in evidence material derived from a covert surveillance. The covert surveillance was of the defendant at his family home, and had been authorised by the Chief Constable and the Surveillance Commissioner. He complained that the matters in issue were subject to privilege, and that the prosecution was an abuse. The matters revealed were his investigation after the death of the legal nature of self defence on his computer, and his conversations with his defence lawyers.
Held: ‘The surveillance was lawful. The relevant disclosure took place. The record of incriminating conversations was unchallenged. We understand that there may be extreme cases in which the prosecuting authorities (using the words in a comprehensive way) may interfere so significantly with the legal privilege of a defendant that the very integrity of the administration of justice may be undermined. That, however, did not happen here. Lawful covert surveillance produced damaging evidence against all three defendants. The process worked lawfully: any flaws were minor and short, and inconsequential. There were no grounds to justify a stay.’

Judges:

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Crim 642

Links:

Bailii, Gazette

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Police Act 1997, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.510717

Beesley and Another, Regina v: CACD 18 Apr 2011

These two appeals raised issues as to the evidence or other information which a sentencing court and this court should receive and take into account when the issue of dangerousness is being considered for the purposes of imprisonment for public protection under the 2003 Act.
Held: The exception allowing such evidence is strictly limited. It will include updated pre-sentence and prison reports on conduct in prison after sentence, but not fresh psychiatric or psychological evidence in support of an argument that a finding of dangerousness ought not to have been made or a hospital order should have been made.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, King J, Wide QC HHJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 1021, [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 15, [2011] Crim LR 668, [2012] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRogers, Regina v CACD 1-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to as to the circumstances in which s.23 of the 1968 Act applies to fresh evidence or other information which an appellant may seek to adduce before this court on an appeal against sentence.
Held: The rules applicable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432820

Jones and Another, Regina v: CACD 30 Sep 2019

The court considered the status of evidence given by a counsellor as to her consultations with the victim, and as to whether it counted as expert or opinion evidence.
Held: A counsellor’s evidence should in general be limited to the facts of the consultation as to the dates given for alleged offences. In giving that evidence, the counsellor should use objective language and avoid making subjective comment or statements of personal opinion.

Judges:

Coulson LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Michael Chambers QC

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1570, [2019] WLR(D) 666, [2020] 4 WLR 26, [2020] 1 Cr App R 7

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedC v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2012
The issue in this appeal relates to the admission of evidence of witnesses, identified in her directions by the judge as expert witnesses, who gave evidence as to the impression they had formed as to the truth of complaints made to them by an . .
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

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.645445

Regina v Clipston: CACD 4 Mar 2011

Confiscation proceeding are themselves broadly criminal in nature. The judge can decide issues on the balance of probabilities, compel the defendant to disclose documents, draw adverse inferences from the absence of evidence, and rely on hearsay evidence.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Butterfield J, Roderick Evans J

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 446, [2011] 2 Crim App R(S) 101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKenny v Regina CACD 30-Jan-2013
The appellant had made a loan to a third party defendant in criminal fraud proceedings. At the time he did not know that that third party was subject to a restraint order under the 2002 Act. When he did come to know of the order he was asked to say . .
CitedAhmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430317

Regina v M (T): CACD 20 Jul 1999

The father of the family had been the principal abuser of his daughters but he also encouraged his son (the appellant) first to watch, and then to participate in the abuse. Later, the son separately abused his sisters. This latter abuse was the basis of all the offences charged. The victims did not blame their brother for what he had done as a child when he witnessed the abuse carried out by his father and participated himself, since their attitude was that he had in fact no real choice. It appears that for this reason (and perhaps for others) no charges were laid in respect of those earlier incidents, but the evidence of those earlier acts of abuse were sought to be adduced.
Held: Kennedy LJ considered also the dangers of providing the jury with substantial documents for consideration.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 2041, [2000] 2 Cr App R 266, [2000] 1 WLR 421, [2000] 1 All ER 148, [1999] Crim LR 982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.158441

Regina v James NJ: CACD 17 Jun 1999

The court admitted in evidence, by applying the res gestae rule, a statement of the defendant’s co-accused.

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 1686

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.158086

Regina 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.

Judges:

Rose LJ VP

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Crim 212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAtkins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.156612

Shirt and Another v Regina: CACD 8 Nov 2018

The two defendants appealed from convictions of conspiracy to defraud, saying that the court should not have admitted in evidence the admissions of co-defendants who had pleaded guilty.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Sir Brian Leveson, Jeremy Baker, Goose JJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Crim 2486, [2018] WLR(D) 689, [2018] 4 WLR 154

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.630984

Regina 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 ultimate decision to the jury, as opposed to the expert witness actually giving a view as to the degree of probability of the images being the same.’

Judges:

Waller LJ, Davis, David Clarke JJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 1639

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

BindingAtkins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.375588

Regina v Trutch, and Mary Trutch: CACD 25 Jul 2001

The defendants had been pursued in substantial commercial litigation. They were alleged to have perjured themselves in affidavits of means sworn and filed at court. Later they had entered into deeds with the other parties, and part of the consideration was an agreement by those other parties not to pursue them for perjury. The defendants claimed a common interest privilege as a basis for excluding the affidavits. That failed because that privilege applied as between those on the same side of a case, and that did not apply here. Nor was there any restriction on their use by any implied undertaking in the civil proceedings. No confidentiality applied, either in the proceedings or in the deed of settlement. They claimed the proceedings were an abuse of process. However the evidence had not been obtained oppressively, because no confidence existed in them. Special applications had been made under PACE, but again there had been no confidence to protect. Nor had any legitimate expectation been created by the deed. There was no compulsion, and the defendants were in receipt of legal advice.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell, Mr Justice Silber

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Crim 1750

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76, 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedButtes Oil and Gas Co v Hammer CA 1981
Reports made by employees to their employers or by agents to their principals are not privileged unless they satisfy, and are privileged if they are reports made for the purpose of being laid before the party’s legal adviser for the purpose of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.159916

C v Regina: CACD 17 Dec 2010

The defendant appealed against an order at a preparatory hearing that evidence of his previous convictions and the manner of his actions should be admissible at his trial for two murders. A ruling had been given which the defendant said would restrict his right to deny those offences.
Held: The defendant’s bare assertion

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2971, (2011) 175 JP 25, [2011] 1 WLR 1942, [2011] 1 Cr App R 17

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLunkulu and Others v Regina CACD 7-Aug-2015
Request for leave to appeal out of time against convictions for murder and against sentence. Much evidence had been circumstantial, and the defendants alleged bias in the summing up, and complained of the admission of bad character evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427385