Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Criminal Evidence - From: 1960 To: 1969

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Regina v McBride [1962] 2 QB 167; [1961] 3 All ER 6
1961


Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence
Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving.
1 Citers


 
Nominal Defendant v Clements (1961) 104 CLR 476
1961

Dixon CJ
Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth
(Australia) "The judge at the trial must determine for himself upon the conduct of the trial before him whether a case for applying the rule of evidence has arisen and, from the nature of the matter, if there be an appeal, great weight should be given to his opinion by the appellate court. It is evident however that the judge at the trial must exercise care in assuring himself not only that the account given by the witness in his testimony is attacked on the ground of recent invention or reconstruction or that a foundation for such an attack has been laid by the party, but also that the contents of the statement are in fact to the like effect as his account given in his evidence and that having regard to the time and circumstances in which it was made it rationally tends to answer the attack. It is obvious that it may not be easy sometimes to be sure that counsel is laying a foundation for impugning the witness’s account of a material incident or fact as a recently invented, devised or reconstructed story. Counsel himself may proceed with a subtlety which is the outcome of caution in pursuing what may prove a dangerous course."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Haas (1962) 35 DLR 172
1962


Criminal Evidence
(Court of Appeal of British Columbia) The court considered the admissibility of evidence derived from a tracker dog: "Once the qualifications of a tracking dog to follow a scent and that of his trainer to handle the dog have been established (in the instant case it was admitted at trial that both the dog and its handler were as good as they could be) evidence of tracking the accused by scent from the scene of a crime by such a dog is admissible on the trial of the accused and the only question concerns the weight to be given to such evidence."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Berry (1963) 83 Cr App R 7
1963


Criminal Evidence
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sparks v The Queen [1964] 1 All ER 727; [1964] 2 WLR 566; [1964] AC 964; [1963] UKPC 33
4 Dec 1963
PC
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth
(Bermuda) A complaint by the alleged victim of a sexual offence is admissible at common law as hearsay only where the complainant gives evidence of the commission of the offence and only for the purpose of showing the consistency of the complainant's conduct in making the complaint and of the statement or statements made by the complainant at the first reasonable opportunity with the complainant's evidence in court.
It is trite law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that statements given were "made freely and voluntarily and not under the influence of improper inducement."
There is no special rule making hearsay admissible in identification cases.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions; HL 1965 - [1965] AC 1001; [1964] 2 All ER 881; [1964] 3 WLR 145
 
Regina v Braye-Jones [1966] Qd R 295
1966

Lucas J
Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth
(Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal) The admissibility of evidence of recent complaint where the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of the contemporaneous complaint differed. Rejecting the suggestion that evidence of the contemporaneous complaint should not have been given as it was inconsistent with the evidence of the complainant: "Clearly enough, evidence of statements made by the prosecutrix which did not bear any resemblance at all to her sworn evidence would not be admissible, for such evidence would be irrelevant. In my opinion, however the matter is one of degree, and if the substance of the complaint can be identified as relating to the story told by the prosecutrix in evidence and if it is such that a jury can reasonably regard it as constituting a complaint of a matter of a sexual nature, then I think that inconsistency as to detail is a matter for the jury to consider in their assessment of the credibility of the prosecutrix"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Reading (1966) 50 Cr App R 98
1966


Criminal Evidence

1 Citers


 
Mawaz Khan Alias Fazal Karim and Amanat Khan v The Queen [1966] UKPC 26; [1967] 1 AC 454; [1967] 1 All ER 80; [1966] 3 WLR 1275
7 Nov 1966
PC

Criminal Evidence
(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.
[ Bailii ]
 
Chan Wei Keung v The Queen [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
7 Nov 1966
PC
Hodson, Pearce, Pearson LL
Criminal Evidence
(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.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Harz and Power; Regina v Harz and Power [1967] 1 AC 760; (1967) 51 Cr App R 123
1967
HL
Lord Reid (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce and Lord Wilberforce agreeing)
Criminal Evidence
The rule that a confessional statement is not admissible if it was induced by a fear of prejudice or a hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority applies equally where the inducement does not relate to the actual or contemplated charge as where the inducement does so relate. There was no requirement that the inducement relate to the charge, but no doubt was cast on the approach of Parke B in R v Moore.
1 Citers


 
Jones v Metcalfe [1967] 1 WLR 1286; [1967] 3 All ER 205
1967
QBD
Diplock LJ
Criminal Evidence
A witness saw a lorry involved in an incident and noted its registration number. He then gave the number to a policeman who had not seen the lorry. Held: The evidence by the policeman of his note of the lorry's number plate was inadmissible hearsay. Diplock LJ said: "The hearsay rule has little to do with common sense."
1 Citers



 
 G (An Infant) v Coltart; 1967 - [1967] 1 QB 432; [1967] 1 All ER 271
 
Regina v Lanfear (1968) CAR 176
1968
CACD

Criminal Evidence
A jury is not bound uncritically to accept unchallenged expert evidence.
1 Citers


 
Scott v Baker [1969] 1 QB 659; [1968] 2 All ER 993; [1968] 3 WLR 796
1968


Criminal Evidence
The 1967 Act introduced the offence of driving with excess alcohol. The power to require a suspect to provide a laboratory blood or urine sample, by which blood alcohol could be tested, was made dependent upon a complex step-by-step procedure. The first step in that procedure was the taking of a preliminary (usually roadside) 'breath test'. By section 7, a 'breath test' was defined as one carried out using a device approved by the Secretary of State. Held: Such approval was essential to the statutory steps leading to a validly required laboratory sample, and that approval must be proved. The maxim 'omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta' cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of facts central to an offence.
Road Safety Act 1967 7
1 Citers


 
Regina v Stafford [1968] 3 All ER 751; (1968) 53 Cr App R 1
1968
CACD
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Criminal Evidence
The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial. Held: "public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would generally be admitted by this Court when verdicts are being reviewed".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Horwood (1969) 53 Cr App R 619
1969


Criminal Evidence

1 Citers


 
Regina v Flack [1969] 1 WLR 937
1969
CACD

Criminal Evidence
The court admitted evidence of previous indecency with an alleged victim of incest.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Lomas (1969) 53 Cr App R 256
1969
CACD

Criminal Evidence
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.

 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.