The court considered a case in which there was admited expert evidence using posture to identify the defendant.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 3559

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.375590

Judges:

Pitchford LJ, Henriques J, Milford QC HHJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 2820, [2011] 2 Cr App R 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sullivan, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426773

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 other facial imaging and mapping experts, said that comparison of the facial characteristics provided ‘strong support for the identification of the robber as the appellant’. No evidence was led of the number of occasions on which any of the six facial characteristics identified by him as ‘the more unusual and thus individual’ were present in the general population, nor as to the frequency of the occurrence in the general population of combinations of these or any other facial characteristics. Mr Harrow did not suggest that there was any national database of facial characteristics or any accepted mathematical formula, as in the case of fingerprint comparison, from which conclusions as to the probability of occurrence of particular facial characteristics of combinations of facial characteristics could safely be drawn. This court is not aware of the existence of any such database or agreed formula. In their absence any estimate of probabilities and any expression of the degree of support provided . . ..must be only the subjective opinion of the facial imaging or mapping witness. There is no means of determining objectively whether or not such an opinion is justified. Consequently, unless and until a national database or agreed formula or some other such objective measure is established, this court doubts whether such opinions should ever be expressed by facial imaging or mapping witnesses. The evidence of such witnesses, including opinion evidence, is of course both admissible and frequently of value to demonstrate to a jury with if necessary enhancement techniques afforded by specialist equipment, particular facial characteristics or combinations of such characteristics so as to permit the jury to reach its own conclusion . . .but on the state of the evidence in this case, and if this court’s understanding of the current position is correct in other cases too, such evidence should stop there.’

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.375587

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 alleged victim of sexual abuse.
Moses LJ described the status of such witnesses: ‘It is important to emphasise that these three witnesses were not called so as to give their view as to the truth or otherwise of the complainant’s evidence, still less their opinion as to the explanation for her behaviour at school or during sessions with them. Evidence given by experts which tends to convey to the jury the expert’s opinion of the truth or otherwise of the complaint is clearly inadmissible. The truth and reliability of the evidence was a matter for the jury not for the expert. No authority is needed to establish the principle that it is not admissible to adduce evidence from ‘experts’ of the truth or otherwise of the complaints of sexual abuse being made. ‘

Judges:

Moses LJ, Underhill J, Inman C JJH

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 1478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Clark CACD 3-Feb-2006
The appellant challenged the use made of the opinion of counsellors as to the truth or otherwise of the complainants allegng sexual offences. The statements had been obtained under treatment including hypnotherapy. A defence expert had said that . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.464757

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.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Kitchen J, Sir Geoffrey Grigson

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 549

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.425195

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 judge had ruled that they were not statements and therefore not hearsay and were admissable.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘Whenever some evidence, which is not in the form of oral evidence in the proceedings, is now sought to be admitted in a criminal trial, there are three preliminary questions that have to be asked. First and foremost, is the proposed evidence relevant? Secondly, if so, is it a ‘statement’ within the meaning of section 115(2) of the CJA? Thirdly, if so, what is the purpose for which this ‘statement’ is to be adduced in evidence? Is it in order to prove a ‘matter stated’ (as defined by section 115(3)), or is it in order to prove the fact that the statement was made at all or is it to prove something else?’
Section 10 in saying that a court ‘must not’ allow evidence in in breach of the code was in stronger terms than was section 78 of the 1984 Act. The prosecution had used the texts to suggest that the defendant was a drug dealer. There was no other evidence to support that attack, and the result was so prejudicial as to make the conviction unsafe.

Judges:

Aikens LJ, Slade J Wadsworth QC J

Citations:

[2010] Crim LR 942, [2010] EWCA Crim 1403, [2010] Crim LR 942

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Criminal Justice Act 2003 11491) 115 118(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417793

The defendants appealed against their convictions for the murder and manslaughter of an elderly man. Three had been present at the scene, and they blamed each other. Bad character evidence against Johnson had not been admitted at first, but had later been accepted.
Held: The evidence remained admissible.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Royce J, Nicol J

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 1149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416170

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.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Henriques, Openshaw JJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 1155, [2010] Crim LR 936

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Rochford CACD 28-Jul-2010
The defendant appealed against sentence after being found in contempt. His lawyers had filed a defence statement, based on the defendant’s case, which the judge felt was inadequate. It was said that the defendant was in contempt after failing to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.416111

The defendant appealed his conviction for affray saying that since there was only one person present and the magistrates, having seen CCTV of the events had not taken other evidence.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘it was quite open to the magistrates to record what they had seen, as long as they went on to ask themselves the correct statutory question. In this case that is precisely what they did. In those circumstances there can be no doubt that the way they approached this issue is correct. I stress that there is no reason why, in reaching their decision, the magistrates were precluded from looking to see how people actually reacted, as long as they went on, as they did in this case, to consider the view of the hypothetical bystander.’

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 610 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Order Act 1986 3(1) 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecution v Cotcher Admn 7-Dec-1992
Evans LJ discussed the offence of affray saying that the court can take into account the reaction of other people who were present: ‘are in no sense bound to conclude that the statutory test was not satisfied merely because those persons were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.491889

The defendant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his conviction of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs.

Judges:

Stanley Burton LJ, Tugendhat J, Stewart L

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 873

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.416047

The DPP appealed by case stated against a dismissal of a charge against the respondent following a driving incident. He complained of the admission of bad character evidence saying that it would be unfair under section 78 of the 1984 Act. The magistrates had accepted that submission.
Held: The Crown had sought to adduce the previous conviction not as evidence of bad character pursuant to sections 101 ff of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but in order to establish an essential ingredient of the offence with which the respondent was charged, namely that he was disqualified from driving at the time of the alleged offence of driving whilst qualified. Applying section 98, it is not necessary to proceed under the gateways relating to the admission of evidence of bad character.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Maddison J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1542 (Admin), [2009] 173 JP 487 DC

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Justice Act 2003 98 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sullivan, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347437

The defendant appealed against her conviction for aggravated vehicle taking. She was found near the scene of a road traffic accident involving a stolen car, and her fingerprint on an inside rear window. She submitted that the officers had asked as to her involvement at a time when she was already a suspect, and that her reply should not have been relied upon.
Held: The appeal failed. The magistrates had found as a matter of fact that at the time of the question, in the opinion of the police officer, the appellant was not a suspect.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 515 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 12A, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Wayne Ward CACD 29-Jul-1993
An interview took place when an appellant, who was later charged with dangerous driving and taking a motor vehicle without authority, was asked why he was hiding, to which he replied ‘I don’t want to get caught.’ He was then arrested for taking a . .
Cited – Regina v Matthews CACD 1990
The court gave guidance on the meaning of the word ‘interview’ when used in the Codes of Practice. Morland J said: ‘In our judgment it is not within the spirit of the Act or the code that ‘interview’ should be given a restricted meaning. Normally . .
Cited – Regina v Absolam CACD 1990
A was arrested. He was already on bail for possession of cannabis, and in the hope finding further evidence he was asked to empty his pockets, ‘and put the drugs on the table’ he did so and admitted selling drugs.
Held: The procedure should . .
Cited – George Pollard v The Queen PC 30-Oct-1995
(St. Vincent and The Grenadines) A notice of appeal which was required by statute to be given ‘in such manner as may be directed by rules of court’, but which did not comply with such rules because it was not signed by the appellant personally, was . .
Cited – Ridehalgh, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-May-2005
The appellant a police officer had arrived at work having been drinking. A senior officer asked if he had driven to work. He replied yes, and on that basis had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. He appealed saying that the question . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.406159

A judge should test bad character evidence before allowing it to be put in. Here the judge had allowed evidence relating to a dismissal from employment for a racially related matter to be put in, but those proceedings had been unsatisfactory, and were not sufficiently reliable to found bad character evidence.

Citations:

Times 31-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 38

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.158688

The appellant dentist appealed his conviction on two out of three charges of sexual assault on teenage patients, saying that the judge should not have allowed the evidence of each complainant to support that of the others.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘we are quite satisfied that this jury cannot have failed to realise that in finding that the counts relating to the second complainant were unproved it was saying that there were independent and similar complaints against this man which were not or may well not be true. It was, we are quite satisfied, not necessary for the judge to attempt what seems to us to be an extremely difficult exercise of foreseeing at the time of summing -up all possible scenarios of conclusion to which the jury could come and directing it hypothetically and separately in relation to each. This summing -up, we are quite satisfied, not only put the defence case fairly; it also put squarely and fairly the use to which the mutual support of each complaint to which it could properly be put. In those circumstances, although these cases are always, both at trial and in this court, anxious ones, we are satisfied that it was for the jury to gauge the evidence overall and to determine whether or not it was sure that the defendant was guilty.’

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2133, [2007] 1 Cr App Rep 16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.278941

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 has no effect. It follows that there will be cases in which hearsay evidence may be admitted under it in circumstances in which it could not be admitted under section 116.’

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 2512

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d) 116

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied – Regina 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.278942

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 appellant. There was no other independent evidence which could be relied upon by the prosecution to establish guilt. The experts were unable to say how the DNA was deposited on the balaclava and it was possible that it had been taken to the scene by somebody else.
Held: The appeal was successful despite the fact there had been a no comment interview.

Judges:

Gage LJ, Silber J, Radford J

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 1890

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.343033

The defendant appealed against his conviction for preparing for terrorist offences, saying that the judge should not have allowed inferences to be drawn from from his decision not to give evidence. He had brought evidence that his physical or mental condition was such as to make it undesirable for him to give evidence.

Judges:

Hughes LJ VP CACD, King J, Gordon HJJ

Citations:

(2009) 173 JP 201, [2009] EWCA Crim 464

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Tabbakh CACD 2009
The defendant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence after conviction for an offence under section 5 of the 2006 Act.
Held: The Court was not prepared to lay down any general range for s.5 offences. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Tabbakh v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-2012
In 2000 the applicant fled Syria. In November 2001 he arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed political asylum. It was accepted that he had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Syria and in July 2005 he was granted Indefinite Leave to . .
See Also – Tabbakh, Regina (on The Application of) v The Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust and Another Admn 9-Aug-2013
The claimant challenged the attaching additional licence conditions on his release from prison. He is serving the non-custodial part of a seven year sentence imposed for an offence of preparing a terrorist act. He was released automatically on . .
See Also – Tabbakh, Regina (on The Application of) v Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust and Another CA 19-Jun-2014
The claimant sought judicial review of the conditions imposed on him on being released from prison under licence, saying that interfered with his Article 8 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324721

Possessor of documents has a first duty to assess relevance of them before being required to produce them.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jul-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.88230

When an Act of Parliament provides that a person shall not do a certain thing unless he has a licence, the onus is always on the defendant to prove that he has a licence because it is a fact peculiarly within his own knowledge

Citations:

[1944] KB 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Kavaz Admn 25-Nov-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.196013

Judges:

Higgins LJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ

Citations:

[2010] NICA 22

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.424833

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 outside the range of reasonable decisions at which the judge could properly have arrived, or if the judge has applied the wrong principles.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Saunders J, Sir Christopher Holland

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 10, [2008] Crim LR 466, [2008] 2 All ER 484, [2008] 1 Cr App R 34, [2008] 1 WLR 1683,

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263875

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 amphetamines. The police had covertly taped the call. The prosecution wanted to support its case that it was MK who was the source of the intended supply of drugs that were the subject of this charge. The trial judge ruled that the prosecution wished to adduce the words as evidence of ‘any matter stated’ and that the words fell within the definition of section 115(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The prosecutor sought to appeal against the terminating ruling.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The purpose of the call and the import of the words used in it was to discover the availability and the price of amphetamines. Therefore the words were neither a ‘statement’ within the definition of section 115(2) nor were they ‘matters stated’ within section 115(3).

Judges:

Richards LJ, Openshaw J, Steohens J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 3150, (2008) 172 JP 538

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 58 115(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.314324

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 evidence had been admitted it was for the jury to make use of them in any relevant way. It served no practicable purpose to seek to make a distinction between use as evidence of propensity, and use as to credibility.
Lord Phillips CJ gave a warning against slavish adherence to a specimen direction: ‘When evidence of bad character is introduced the jury should be given assistance as to its relevance that is tailored to the facts of the individual case. Relevance can normally be deduced by application of common sense. The summing up that assists the jury with the relevance of bad character evidence will accord with common sense and assist them to avoid prejudice that is at odds with it.’ and ‘If the jury is told in simple language and with reference, where appropriate to the particular facts of the case, why the bad character evidence may be relevant, this will necessarily encompass the gateway by which the evidence was admitted. It is of course highly desirable that the jury should be warned against attaching too much weight to bad character evidence let alone concluding that the defendant is guilty simply because of his bad character.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips LCJ, Henriques J, Teare J

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2007, [2007] EWCA Crim 1472

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sullivan, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254428

The defendant appealed saying that the judge erred in admitting as hearsay evidence a statement made at the scene of a crime by a person who could not afterwards be identified or traced.

Judges:

Lord Justice Leggatt

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Crim 1143

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639317

The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He complained at the admission of a statement made by the police surgeon who had attended him in the police station as evidence of bad character under the 2003 Act. The statement was as to his liability to snap if he had not taken medication. The defendant said this was not evidence of bad character.
Held: The evidence was not admissible: ‘In the context of this charge of murder, we do not accept that shouting at a partner in the manner described can amount to reprehensible behaviour within the meaning of Section 102 of the 2003 Act. Shouting between partners over the care of a very young child is not of course to be commended but in the context of a charge of murdering a close friend, it does not cross the threshold contemplated by the words of the statute. ‘ However the verdict remained safe.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Henriques J, Sir Rchard Curtis

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Crim 481, Times 24-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74, Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rex 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Dolan CACD 2002
The defendant appealed conviction for the murder of his infant son. Evidence said that he had lost his temper with a fire in the home as it would not light, and had damaged it with a hammer or by kicking it; evidence that he had lost his temper with . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Palmer, Regina v CACD 6-Dec-2016
The court considered the admission in evidence of social media messages. The defendant had been convicted of the murder of her violent boyfriend, and objected unsuccessfully to the admission of texts which she said were unduly prejudicial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249967

The defendant was convicted of indecent assault. He appealed, saying that the complainant at 3 and a half years old was too young to give reliable evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There were defects in the recording of the circumstances surrounding the recorded interview, and her evidence could not properly be tested. There had been a delay of nine weeks before she was interviewed: ‘the plain fact is that where a case depends on the evidence of a very young child it is absolutely essential (a) that the ABE interview takes place very soon after the event and (b) that the trial (at which the child has to be cross-examined) takes place very soon thereafter.’ The judge was wrong to have rejected the submission of no case to answer.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Ramsey J, Recorder of Cardiff

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 03, Times 17-Jan-2006, [2006] 1 Cr App R 31, [2006] Crim LR 781

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 27(2) 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v D CACD 2002
An ability was required on the part of the witness to understand questions and give answers to them that were understandable, in short, intelligibility. . .
Cited – Ali Sed v Regina CACD 27-May-2004
The appellant challenged his conviction for attempted rape of an elderly woman. Her evidence had been accepted in written form because she was unable to attend court.
Held: Before accepting such evidence the court had to establish that she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.237591

Appeal from conviction for robbery – the extent to which expert evidence read to the jury from an expert in facial mapping was correctly described as ‘some support, albeit limited’ for the identification made by a police officer.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 1375

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.280024

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 Act merely codified existing law.The Act made the pre-existing test obsolete. Once having satisfied the test set out in 101(1)(d) and 101(3), the evidence was admissible. Section 100 of the 2003 Act incorporates matters sounding exclusively on issues of credibility: ‘Although couched in different terms from the provisions relating to the introduction of the Defendant’s bad character, in our view Section 100(1) does cover matters of credibility. To find otherwise would mean that there was a significant lacuna in the legislation with the potential for unfairness’.
As to the case of Manister: ‘once it is decided that evidence of the appellant’s sexual relationship with B did not amount to ‘evidence of bad character’, the abolition of the common law rules governing the admissibility of ‘evidence of bad character’ by s.99(1) did not apply. We have no doubt that evidence of the relationship was admissible at common law, in the particular circumstances of this case, because it was relevant to the issue of whether the appellant had a sexual interest in A. It was capable of demonstrating a sexual interest in early or mid teenage girls, much younger than the appellant, and therefore bore on the truth of his case of a purely supportive, asexual interest in A. It was not in our judgment unfair to admit the evidence (see s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) . . So far as C’s evidence was concerned, the judge did not expressly rule on whether it amounted to evidence of ‘bad character’ for the purposes of the Act, or was simply relevant as part of the background as to what was going on in the sister’s family, involving the appellant. Unattractive as the alleged conversation was, we do not consider that it could safely be judged to amount to reprehensible conduct on the appellant’s part. But his words, with their implied admission of sexual attraction to a 15-year-old C, were again, in our view, clearly relevant to the issue of whether the appellant was sexually attracted to A, and therefore admissible for the same reasons which apply to the sexual relationship with B. It was not unfair to admit C’s evidence.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Bell, Dobbs JJ

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 2866, [2006] 1 Cr App R 19, [2006] 1 WLR 1885, [2006] 2 All ER 570, [2006] Crim LR 433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 99 100

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – O’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 . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236007

The defendant appealed against his convictions for sexual and other serious assaults. He complained of the admission in evidence of previous convictions and the methods used by him.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘Judge Brown dealt with the previous convictions in a manner in respect of which no possible objection can be taken. He did not go into the details of the previous convictions. He explained why they were relevant in a way which properly drew the jury’s attention to their significance. The appellant had given evidence and had been asked about his account of the previous convictions. He qualified matters contained in the methods used on the documents which had been admitted, but they were as to specific items appearing in those statements and not to their generality. The jury heard the appellant’s explanation. They were aware of his evidence as to what had happened. There was no oral evidence before them to contradict his account of his previous convictions . . the evidence against the appellant, quite apart from the previous convictions, was overwhelming. Four different complainants, unknown to each other, gave an account of assaults taking place which were of a similar nature and which occurred over a short period of time.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Goldring, Walker JJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2030, (2005) 169 JP 441

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d) 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lunkulu 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: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235791

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 the provisions, saying there was little doubt that the occasions upon which a statute will be construed as imposing a burden of proof upon a defendant outside the formulation of this case were likely to be exceedingly rare. Where it was not clear that a statute imposed a burden of proof on a defendant, the court should look to the mischief sought to be remedied by the Act.
Lord Ackner said that the phrase ‘statutory exception’ is not limited to express statutory exception but extends to the imposition by Parliament of such a burden of proof ‘either expressly or by necessary implication’ which included not only the necessary implication contained within section 101 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (‘Where the defendant to an information . . relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification . . the burden of proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him . . ‘) but also to trials on indictment.
Lord Griffiths said that: ‘I would summarise the position thus far by saying that Woolmington [1935] AC 462 did not lay down a rule that the burden of proving a statutory defence only lay upon the defendant if the statute specifically so provided: that a statute can, on its true construction, place a burden of proof on the defendant although it does not do so expressly: that if a burden of proof is placed on the defendant it is the same burden whether the case be tried summarily or on indictment, namely, a burden that has to be discharged on the balance of probabilities.
The real difficulty in these cases lies in determining upon whom Parliament intended to place the burden of proof when the statute has not expressly so provided. It presents particularly difficult problems of construction when what might be regarded as a matter of defence appears in a clause creating the offence rather than in some subsequent proviso from which it may more readily be inferred that it was intended to provide for a separate defence which a defendant must set up and prove if he wishes to avail himself of it. ‘
Lord Griffiths then analysed the case of Nimmo saying: ‘The question before the House was whether the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make the working place safe lay upon the defendant or the plaintiff in a civil action. However, as the section also created a summary offence the same question would have arisen in a prosecution. In the event, the House divided three to two on the construction of the section, Lord Reid and Lord Wilberforce holding that the section required the plaintiff or prosecution to prove that it was reasonably practicable to make the working place safe, the majority, Lord Guest, Lord Upjohn and Lord Pearson, holding that if the plaintiff or prosecution proved that the working place was not safe it was for the defendant to excuse himself by proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make it safe. However, their Lordships were in agreement that if the linguistic construction of the statute did not clearly indicate upon whom the burden should lie the court should look to other considerations to determine the intention of Parliament such as the mischief at which the Act was aimed and practical considerations affecting the burden of proof and, in particular, the ease or difficulty that the respective parties would encounter in discharging the burden. I regard this last consideration as one of great importance for surely Parliament can never lightly be taken to have intended to impose an onerous duty on a defendant to prove his innocence in a criminal case, and a court should be very slow to draw any such inference from the language of a statute.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1987] 1 AC 352, (1986) 84 Cr App R 163, [1986] 3 WLR 1115, [1987] AC 352, [1987] 1 All ER 1

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 101

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Woolmington 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 . .
Approved – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Nimmo v Alexander Cowan and Sons Ltd HL 1967
The employer was prosecuted under the 1961 Act.
Held: the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to make and keep a place of work safe rested upon the defendant employer. If an exception was to be established, it was for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lynch 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sheldrake 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: . .
Cited – Clarke v Regina CACD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for providing immigration services when not qualified to do so. . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – Webster 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 . .
Cited – Grundy and Co Excavations Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Halton Division Magistrates Court Admn 24-Feb-2003
A reverse legal burden applied to defendants accused of an offence under section 17 of the Forestry Act 1967 which, in specified circumstances, created an absolute offence of felling a tree without a felling licence. Clarke LJ said: ‘It is thus . .
Cited – Regina v Alath Construction Ltd CACD 1990
The defendant company was accused of felling a tree in breach of a tree preservation order. Recorder Zucker QC had ruled held that the prosecution did not have to prove that the tree in question was not dying, or dead or dangerous or creating a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.184849

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 been interfered with by a court of appeal: ‘Having concluded that none of the individual complaints, taken on its own, impugns the safety of these convictions, we reconsidered whether the convictions were rendered unsafe by the cumulative effect of the problems we have identified. Having done so, we have concluded that these convictions are safe. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. ‘

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2826, Times 16-Nov-2005, [2006] 2 All ER 553

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 Part II

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234700

The defendant appealed against her conviction for the murder of her two infant children by, in the one case, smothering and, in the other, suffocation. Amongst the experts called at her trial by the Crown was Professor Sir Roy Meadow. The statistical evidence he had given suffered the ‘prosecutor’s fallacy’ and had badly misled the jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Evidence had been found that there was a possible second medical explanation for one death, and some analysis had not been revealed by of of the prosecution’s expert witnesses to the court to the defence or to the other expert witnesses.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Holland and Hallett JJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1020

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Hakala CACD 2002
The court discussed the correct approach of the Court of Appeal to new evidence on appeal: ‘However the safety of the appellant’s conviction is examined, the essential question, and ultimately the only question for this Court, is whether, in the . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
See Also – Regina v Clark CACD 2-Oct-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227040

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 investigated for a similar offence, but the alleged victim had withdrawn the complaint. B argued that, had he known of the allegation, he would have sought to cross examine the complainant upon this incident, since it went directly to the issue of his credibility and, therefore, the safety of the conviction.
Held: The court emphasised the need for parties to comply with the rules on such evidence, and if a previous conviction as to be relied upon, the court should be referred to the basis of plea if that differed from the prosucution’s original basis. Also thought ought to be given to altering the guidance on the preservation of records in the relevant Code of Practice in the light of the provisions in the 2003 Act.
Rose LJ said as to B’s case: ‘It seems to us to be unlikely in the extreme that the judge, had he known of the events in 2001, would have admitted the allegation of a Section 18 offence made against the complainant. We say that, first, because we entertain considerable doubt as to whether the mere making of an allegation is capable of being evidence within Section 100(1). As the allegation was, in the circumstances which we have identified, withdrawn, our doubt on this aspect is increased.
It is apparent from the circumstances, as we have summarised them, that if there was to be any question of the Section 18 allegation being admitted before the jury, it would necessarily have given rise to investigation of the other subsequent matters, including the aspersion on the credibility of the victim, the want of independent confirmation of his account, and the fact that he had withdrawn the allegation. An excursion into these satellite matters is, as it seems to us, precisely the sort of excursion which, as was suggested, in paragraph 12 of the judgment in Hanson, a trial judge should be discouraged from embarking upon. All of this adds to the unlikelihood of the judge permitting evidence of the 2001 events even if they had been known about at trial.’

Judges:

Rose LJ, Gibbs, Stanley Burnton JJ

Citations:

Times 13-May-2005, [2005] EWCA Crim 1091

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 98ff

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224872

The appellant had been convicted of the murder of his wife. A pathologist gave evidence that the cause of death was due to compression of the neck. He preferred not to call it strangulation because he had never seen a case of death from such a cause with less outward or internal signs of injury. He did however make findings which led him to the opinion that there had been continuous pressure on the deceased woman’s neck maintained for a period of thirty seconds. While the defence had the assistance of an expert pathologist, he was never called. On the hearing of the appeal, the appellant sought leave to call a distinguished pathologist who had been consulted following conviction and who had read the whole of the evidence, consulted with both the prosecution pathologist and the defence pathologist and had seen the neck structures which had been preserved by the prosecution pathologist. As a result of his study, he disagreed profoundly with the prosecution pathologist, stating the there was no evidence to support his view of firm, continuous pressure for at least thirty seconds. He felt that the compression could well have been for a very few seconds only.
Held: An appeal court will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial.

Citations:

(1969) 53 Cr App R 256

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.519360

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.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Rafferty DBE J, Beatson J

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 905, [2009] 2 Cr App R 16, [2009] Crim LR 827

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (S1 2005 No. 384), Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Mckenzie v Regina CACD 11-Apr-2008
. .
Cited – Wallace v Regina CACD 16-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – 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 . .
Approved – DM, Regina v CACD 21-Apr-2008
The accused appealed after the admission of bad character evidence in respect of allegations for which he had not faced prosecution. Moses LJ said that a jury would need ‘to consider with as much detail and concentration all the facts’ in relation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell, 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.
Applied – Mitchell, Regina v CANI 30-Apr-2015
Appeal from conviction for murder. The conviction had been obtained after evidence was led as to previous occasions on which the defendant was said to have used knives in violent encounters as evidence of bad character.
Held: Leave to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.342961

Where non-conviction evidence is being relied on to establish propensity and the evidence is disputed, the jury must be directed not to rely on it unless they are sure of its truth.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 1076, [2009] Crim LR 822

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell, 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.346838

The court considered the use of bad character evidence based upon one previous alleged incident from which no prosecution had followed. The appellant had been convicted of murder in a public house in Woolwich. He struck the victim in the neck with a glass and this caused fatal injuries. The prosecution alleged that this had been a deliberate attack. The appellant claimed that he was acting in self-defence. Only a few days earlier, he had been involved in a similar incident at a different public house which was called ‘The Great Harry’. On that occasion he had broken a glass and used it to cause injuries to three men. The Crown applied for leave to admit evidence of the incident in The Great Harry. In acceding to that application, the judge said that ‘the jury will have to be sure of the facts before they can use them, applying the criminal burden and standard of proof’. In directing the jury about the earlier incident, she said that the prosecution relied on three relevant matters – that the appellant had deliberately broken a glass; that he used it with the intention of causing really serious harm; and that he had done so unlawfully. The judge then said, ‘If you are not sure of any of those facts, the events in The Great Harry are irrelevant to your deliberations on the charge of murder’.
Held: The direction to the jury was approved.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mitchell, 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.
Applied – Mitchell, Regina v CANI 30-Apr-2015
Appeal from conviction for murder. The conviction had been obtained after evidence was led as to previous occasions on which the defendant was said to have used knives in violent encounters as evidence of bad character.
Held: Leave to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.266218

Directions on obtaining further evidence before hearing of appeal.

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Crim 1007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.548109

Admission of a previous conviction for possession of a bladed article into a trial as evidence of bad character pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 2235, (2009) 173 JP 616

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.377764

The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He had claimed self defence. A main issues for the jury was who had produced the knife which caused the fatal injuries. The appellant had previous convictions for, other offences of violence with weapons, and these were introduced by the appellant in his own evidence and were therefore admitted under the 2003 Act. They wereold, and he said he was reformed. His partner, had made a much more recent statement to the police that the appellant had made a threat to slit her throat with a knife. Other aspects of the same incident had led to a conviction in 2003 for criminal damage but no proceedings had been taken for the alleged threat to kill. The prosecution made a successful application to cross-examine the appellant upon that threat. Ms Daley was called to give evidence in support of the appellant’s defence. She was cross examined upon the contents of her 2003 statement and grudgingly admitted that the appellant had at that time been in possession of a penknife and that the contents of her statement were true. Prosecuting counsel, in his final address, invited the jury to conclude that the appellant’s previous convictions and behaviour made it more likely that he produced the knife which led to the deceased’s death. The judge directed the jury that in deciding whether it was the deceased or the appellant who produced the knife the jury could take account both of the appellant’s previous convictions and the altercation with Samantha Daley.
He argued that the jury should have been directed that before they could act on her evidence they must be sure that the threats were made.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge should have address in his summing up the issues (1) for what purpose the evidence could be used by the jury once admitted and (2) whether there was a danger that the jury might use the evidence for a purpose which was inappropriate and, for that reason, instruct the jury as to its limitations. He had been in error in failing to address with the jury whether any of the bad character evidence was capable of establishing a relevant propensity and, if so, to provide them with appropriate bad character warnings. If not, the jury should have been warned against using the evidence for that purpose. As to the 2003 incident the jury should have received a direction that they could not act upon her evidence for any purpose unless they were sure the appellant had uttered the threats she had claimed in her statement.
However, the conviction was safe. The judge had emphasised to the jury that historical matters were purely background; they should concentrate upon the evidence in proof of the offence charged.

Judges:

Hooper, LJ, Forbes, Pitchford JJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 3238, [2009] Crim LR 809

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Najib 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. . .
Cited – Mitchell, 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.291885

Two defendants appealed from their convictions. Magistrates had used as evidence the contents of a Preparation for Effective Trial (‘PET’) form as part of the case management process intended to identify the issues between the parties.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The form was part of the trade off between case management and the parties’ rights. Statements made on the form, other than admissions, should not be admitted as evidence provided that the defendant’s advocate had followed the letter and spirit of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2908 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 676

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.630572

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 striking similarity to the facts of the case currently before the court.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: The test was whether it was ‘a really material bearing on the issues to be decided’ and it must be such that to exclude the evidence would be ‘an affront to common sense’
Lord Wilberforce said: There must be ‘a strong degree of probative force’ based on the ‘striking similarity’ of the material facts. ‘evidence which would point so strongly to his guilt that only an ultra-cautious jury, if they accepted it as true, would acquit in face of it.’
Lord Cross of Chelsea said: It must be ‘evidence which would point so strongly to his guilt that only an ultra-cautious jury, if they accepted it as true, would acquit in face of it.’
Lord Salmon said: ‘the similarity would have to be so unique or striking that common sense makes it inexplicable on the basis of coincidence.’
Lord Hailsham said: ‘The ‘striking resemblances’ or ‘unusual features’ or whatever phrase is considerable appropriate, to ignore which would affront common sense, may either be in the objective facts . . or may constitute a striking similarity in the accounts by witnesses of disputed transaction. For instance, while it would certainly not be enough to identify the culprit in a series of burglaries that he climbed in through a ground floor window, the fact that he left the same humorous limerick on the walls of the sitting room, are an esoteric symbol written in lipstick on the mirror, might well be enough.’

Judges:

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Salmon

Citations:

[1975] AC 421, [1974] 3 All ER 887, (1975) 60 Cr App R 165, [1974] 3 WLR 673, 60 CR A131

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Makin 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Kilbourne HL 1973
The respondent was convicted of sexual offences against two groups of boys. The trial judge directed the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the uncorroborated evidence of the second group as supporting evidence given by the first . .

Cited by:

Cited – O’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 . .
Cited – Thorpe v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1989
The plaintiff was arrested at a demonstration, charged with obstructing the highway and convicted before the magistrates. His conviction was quashed by the Crown Court on appeal. He sued for assault, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious . .
Cited – O’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 . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Steel 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Cambridge CACD 2-Aug-2011
. .
Cited – Mitchell, 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.186038

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 be completely accurate, such evidence was admissible.
Rose LJ said: ‘A skill or expertise can be recognised and respected and thus satisfy the conditions for admissible expert evidence, although the discipline is not susceptible to this sort of scientific discipline.’
Rose LJ continued: ‘With certain limited categories of evidence it is necessary for the judge to give the jury a special warning, highlighting both the potential dangers involved in relying on the evidence in question, and the need to exercise particular caution, e.g. eyewitness evidence identifying a defendant: R v Turnbull [1976] 63 Cr App R 132, 1977 1 Q.B. 224; the identification of a defendant by his voice: R v Hersey [1998] Crim LR 281; R v Gummerson and Steadman [1999] Crim LR 680; R v Roberts [2000] Crim LR 183; and alleged ‘cell confessions’ by defendants: R v Pringle UKPC 17 of 2002 unreported, BAILII: [2003] UKPC 9, 27 January 2003; Benedetto V The Queen and Labrador v The Queen [2003] 1 WLR 1545; Pollitt v The Queen [1991-1992] 174 C.L.R. 558.
The general principle derived from those and other cases is that a ‘special warning’ is necessary if experience, research or common sense has indicated that there is a difficulty with a certain type of evidence that requires giving the jury a warning of its dangers and the need for caution, tailored to meet the needs of the case. This will often be the case where jurors may be unaware of the difficulty, or may insufficiently understand it.
The strength of the warning and its terms will depend on the nature of the evidence, its reliability or lack of it, and the potential problems it poses. For instance, it has been recognised that identification of a suspect by voice is less reliable than visual identification evidence, and accordingly usually requires a warning that is couched in stronger terms: see Hersey; Gummerson and Steadman and Roberts.’

Judges:

Rose LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Jun-2004, [2004] EWCA Crim 1344, [2004] 2 Cr App R 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – The 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

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198146

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 statement can be made as much by demonstration or gesture as by words’ Lord Griffiths said:- ‘the question raised by this appeal is whether that part of a confession which is shown to be reliable by the discovery of the evidence to which it relates may be given in evidence despite the fact that the admission may have been obtained by police brutality which renders inadmissible all other parts of the confession.’ and held: ‘the more recent English cases established that the rejection of an improperly obtained confession is not dependant only upon possible unreliability but also upon the principle that a man cannot be compelled to incriminate himself and upon the importance that attaches in a civilised society to proper behaviour by the police towards those in their custody.’
‘But it is surely just as reprehensible to use improper means to force a man to give information that will reveal he has knowledge that will ensure his conviction as it is to force him to make a full confession. In either case a man is being forced into a course of action that will result in his conviction: he is being forced to incriminate himself. The privilege against self-incrimination is deep rooted in English law and it would make a grave inroad upon it if the police were to believe that if they improperly extracted admissions from an accused which were subsequently shown to be true they could use those admissions against the accused for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.’
‘Without this evidence there was nothing to link the defendants to the murder weapon and the prosecution do not seek to uphold the convictions in the absence of such evidence.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1991] 2 AC 212, [1991] 3 All ER 172, (1991) 93 Cr App R 358, [1991] 2 WLR 1082

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
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 . .
Cited – Cletus Timothy, Dexter Reid and Sheldon Lewis v The State PC 22-Apr-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Cited – Mohamed, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.235913

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Crim 311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193932

Police working undercover were asked to use mobile telephones. They recorded their conversations. At trial the defendants asked for the details of the authorisation for the interception of the communications, but were given only part information before the intercepts were admitted. They appealed against the conviction.
Held: The recordings of their own telephone conversations by the officers were not interceptions. No third party was listening in on a conversation between others. They could have given evidence as to the content of the conversations, and taken notes, and the recordings corroborated the officer’s account.
Tape recording by undercover officers of telephone conversations with the Appellants was not an interception of the communication in the course of its transmission within the meaning of section 2(2) RIPA, but was the same as the secret recording by the officer of the conversation whilst meeting the suspect face to face.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Hughes, Royce JJ

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-2002, Gazette 19-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 3012

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 2(2)

Cited by:

Cited – Edmondson 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

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178194

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 not admissible. The phrase ‘engaged in’ could refer either to his status, or that the act was part of the activities as an employee. The doubt which would be created by the second meaning suggested the first was appropriate. It was well accepted that the police can, at interview, put to the defendant, evidence which would not be admissible at trial. The use of that interview was then to be tested as to the effect on the fairness of the proceedings under section 78

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Citations:

Gazette 15-Nov-2001, [2001] UKHL 54, [2003] 1 AC 347, [2002] 1 All ER 161, [2002] 1 Cr App R 26, [2001] 3 WLR 992

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Interception of Communications Act 1985 1 9(2)(c), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina 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 – Regina 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 – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Fox 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 . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – W, 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 . .
Cited – Attorney 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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166703