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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 31 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Malik; CACD 2000 - [2000] 2 Cr App 8
Lashley, Regina v [2000] EWCA Crim 88
8 Feb 2000
CACD
Kennedy LJ, Goldring J
Criminal Evidence
The sole evidence against an appellant was DNA found on a cigarette left at the scene of the crime. It was accepted that there would be between seven and ten males in the United Kingdom to whom this profile related. There was no other evidence before the jury linking the defendant to the crime. Held: The judge ought to have acceded to submissions at the close of the prosecution case that the case should be withdrawn from the jury. In an appropriate case the additional evidence need only be very limited, but there must be some independent evidence establishing a nexus between the defendant and the crime.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Sawoniuk [2000] EWCA Crim 9; [2000] 2 Cr App R 220
10 Feb 2000
CACD
Lord Bingham LCJ, Tucker, Hallett JJ
Criminal Evidence
"Criminal charges cannot be fairly judged in a factual vacuum. In order to make a rational assessment of evidence directly relating to a charge it may often be necessary for a jury to receive evidence describing, perhaps in some detail, the context and circumstances in which the offences are said to have been committed. This, as we understand, is the approach indicated by this court in Pettman, May 2nd 1985, (unreported) approved in Sidhu (1994) 98 Cr App R 59 at 65 and Fulcher [1995] 2 Cr App R 251 at 258."
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another; HL 17-Feb-2000 - Times, 22 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 11; [2000] 2 WLR 373; [2000] 2 AC 412; [2000] 1 All ER 773; [2000] All ER (D) 199
Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions; HL 18-Feb-2000 - Times, 18 February 2000; Gazette, 02 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 9; [2000] 2 All ER 522; [2000] 2 WLR 386; [2000] Crim LR 576; [2001] 1 AC 315
Regina v Cairns; CACD 8-Mar-2000 - Times, 08 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 21
Regina v Perry Times, 28 April 2000
28 Apr 2000
CACD
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
The over frequent reference to Human Rights legislation when challenging identification evidence procedures, was capable of bringing disrepute on that branch of law. The case could be disposed of entirely within national law. Breaches of the Codes of Practice on the conduct of Identification Procedures did not prevent the resulting evidence of identification being admitted.
Condron v The United Kingdom Times, 09 May 2000; 35718/97; (2001) 31 EHRR 1; [2000] ECHR 190; [2000] ECHR 191
2 May 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
A direction to a jury about an accused person's silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing from heroin. The judge allowed the jury the option of drawing an adverse inference from their silence. Held: The right of silence lay at the heart of a right to a fair trial. A court should be particularly careful before allowing such adverse inferences: "the fact that the applicants' exercised their right to silence at the police station is relevant to the determination of the fairness issue. However that fact does not itself preclude the drawing of an adverse inference . . Similarly, the fact that the issue of the applicants' silence was left to a jury cannot of itself be considered incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. It is, rather, another relevant consideration to be weighed in the balance when assessing whether or not it was fair to do so in the circumstances." It was mandatory, when giving guidance to the jury on s.34, to direct the jury that they should not draw an adverse inference from silence unless they were satisfied that the silence could only be attributed to the defendant having no answer to the Crown's case, or none that would stand up to cross-examination.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; No separate issue under Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 19945 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 5-May-2000 - Gazette, 05 May 2000
Regina v James (Walter) Times, 09 May 2000
9 May 2000
CACD
Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice
Where fresh evidence from a witness who was not available for the trial is sought to be adduced on an appeal, the evidence must also include evidence or explanation as to the background of the new evidence or change in evidence.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
Director of Public Prosecutions v Baldwin; QBD 11-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000
Khan v The United Kingdom Times, 23 May 2000; 35394/97; ECHR 2000-V; [2000] ECHR 194; (2000) 31 EHRR 1016; [2000] ECHR 195; (2001) 31 EHRR 45
12 May 2000
ECHR
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did not regulate sufficiently the use of covert listening devices to protect the individual's rights under the Convention to respect for private and family life, and nor did the law give any effective remedy for such intrusion. The court in admitting such evidence had taken proper account of the unfairness and lack of regulation. The UK courts had not considered the admission of the evidence to be unfair. The complaint under article 8 was upheld, that under article 6 was rejected.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Wright Times, 31 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 38
15 May 2000
CACD
Criminal Evidence
A judge should test bad character evidence should 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.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
[ Bailii ]
Regina v X; R v Y; R v Z; CACD 23-May-2000 - Times, 23 May 2000
Regina v B (Attorney-General's Reference No 3 of 1999); Regina v Weir Times, 16 June 2000; Gazette, 06 July 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 43; [2000] 3 WLR 1164; [2000] Crim LR 994; [2000] 4 All ER 360; [2000] 2 Cr App R 416
26 May 2000
CACD
Swinton Thomas LJ, Butterfield J, Rafferty J
Criminal Evidence, Crime
Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be destroyed, and evidence based upon samples not so destroyed cannot be admitted.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64(3B)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Z (Prior acquittal); HL 22-Jun-2000 - Times, 23 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; [2000] 2 AC 483; [2000] UKHL 68; [2001] Crim LR 222; [2000] 2 Cr App R 281; [2000] 3 All ER 385; (2000) 164 JP 533; [2000] 3 WLR 117
Regina v Davis, Rowe, Johnson; CACD 17-Jul-2000 - Times, 25 July 2000; Times, 24 April 2000; [2001] 1 Cr App Rep 8; [2000] Crim LR 1012; [2000] UKHRR 683; [2000] HRLR 527; [2000] EWCA Crim 109
Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger; QBD 21-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 05 October 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 662; [2000] UKHRR 796; [2002] Crim LR 64; [2001] EMLR 4; [2001] 2 All ER 244
Regina v Raynor; CACD 19-Sep-2000 - Times, 19 September 2000
In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation); CA 22-Sep-2000 - Times, 10 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 254; [2001] 1 FLR 267; [2000] 4 All ER 961; [2001] Fam 147; [2001] 2 WLR 480; [2001] 9 BHRC 261; [2000] 3 FCR 577; [2001] Fam Law 18; (2001) 57 BMLR 1; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 425; [2001] UKHRR 1
I J L, G M R, and A K P v United Kingdom (Application Nos 29522/95, 30056/96, and 30574/96) Times, 13 October 2000
13 Oct 2000
ECFI
Criminal Evidence, Company, Human Rights
The obtaining by compulsion of statements in Companies investigations which were later used in evidence in criminal trials was a breach of the defendant's human right to a fair trial by enforced self-incrimination. However there was no evidence in this case that there had been any collusion to seek to take advantage of the procedure in planning the timing of the criminal proceedings, and given the complex nature of the matters in issue, the delay was not so unreasonable as to amount to an infringement.
Regina v Hanratty Times, 26 October 2000
26 Oct 2000
CACD
Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice
Persuasive but not conclusive evidence of the deceased's involvement in a notorious murder for which he had hanged had been found by subsequent DNA analysis. That analysis could only be improved by direct DNA analysis to be obtained by exhuming his body. In these circumstances, there was an over-riding public interest in obtaining positive confirmation or otherwise of the deceased's guilt or innocence.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Mcintosh v HM Advocate Times, 31 October 2000; [2000] DRA 12
31 Oct 2000
HCJ
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Scotland
An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated that presumption of innocence. The section required nothing of the Crown to even suggest any justified grounds of suspicion. The absence of any charge or similar procedure would make it even more necessary to provide the person subject to the application with the right to a fair trial.
Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Dixon Times, 02 November 2000
2 Nov 2000
CACD
Criminal Evidence
Evidence of the conviction of a co-accused for the same offence was a discretion to be used only sparingly by the judge. The jury were in danger of concluding that the fact of the conviction was evidence against the defendant that an offence had indeed taken place. The direction in this case effectively removed from the jury the opportunity to consider properly a main plank of the defendant's case.
Regina v Hardwicke and Thwaites Times, 16 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Crim 60
10 Nov 2000
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy Justice Alliott and Justice Bell
Criminal Evidence, Media, Crime
Malpractice or entrapment by those outside the legal system was not to be considered in the same way as such behaviour by those who had a formal part in the investigation of crime. That a journalist might encourage a crime for a story should not necessarily lead to exclusion of the evidence. The journalist's crime was venial in comparison to that of the appellants, and their behaviour would not undermine trust as would similar behaviour in law enforcement officers.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
[ Bailii ]
Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn); HL 15-Dec-2000 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 15 December 2000; [2000] UKHL 63; [2001] 2 WLR 56; [2001] 2 AC 91
Regina v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) (Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 1999) Times, 19 December 2000; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2000] UKHL 66; [2000] 1 CAR 430 (HL); [2001] 1 AC 473; [2001] 1 Crim App R 430; [2001] 2 WLR 1; [2001] 1 All ER 686
19 Dec 2000
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Police, Criminal Evidence
The provisions of the Code of Practice regarding identification parades are mandatory and additional unwritten conditions are not to be inserted. Where there was an identification and the suspect challenged that identification, and consented to the parade, the parade must be held. There is nothing in the words of code of practice to allow police officers not to hold an identification parades where the identification was considered to be already completed. There is nothing in the code to justify a distinction as to quality of identification evidence between that of a police officer and of a member of the public. In the past, identification which had received complete and unequivocal acceptance had proved to be the source of miscarriages of justice. Once a breach of the Codes was found, the trial judge must deal with this in his summing up in words which were appropriate to the situation. Nevertheless, in this case there had been a prior unequivocal identification. Lord Bingham of Cornhill: "If an eye-witness of a criminal incident makes plain to the police that he cannot identify the culprit, it will very probably be futile to invite that witness to attend an identification parade. If an eye-witness may be able to identify clothing worn by a culprit but not the culprit himself, it will probably be futile to mount an identification parade rather than simply inviting the witness to identify the clothing. If a case is one of pure recognition of someone well-known to the eye-witness, it may again be futile to hold an identification parade. But save in cases such as these, or other exceptional circumstances, the effect of paragraph 2.3 is clear: if (a) the police have sufficient information to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in an offence, and (b) an eye-witness has identified or may be able to identify that person, and (c) the suspect disputes his identification as a person involved in the commission of that offence, an identification parade must be held if (d) the suspect consents and (e) paragraphs 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of Code D do not apply."
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v P and others; HL 19-Dec-2000 - Times, 19 December 2000; Gazette, 22 February 2001; [2002] 1 AC 146; [2000] UKHL 69; [2000] UKHL 72; [2001] 2 Cr App R 8; [2001] 2 All ER 58; [2001] 2 WLR 463
Regina v Gilfoyle Times, 13 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Crim 81; [2001] 2 Cr App R 5
20 Dec 2000
CACD
Rose VP LJ, Hallett, Crane JJ
Criminal Evidence
The evidence of a psychological autopsy was not admissible in court proceedings. The field was not one with sufficiently established evidence of value and standards to allow it properly to be assessed. If it were allowed on behalf of the defence in order to establish possible intentions of the deceased, the defence might in due course face similar evidence being brought against the defendant himself.
The expert had not embarked on the exercise in question before and there were no criteria by reference to which the court could test the quality of his opinions and no substantial body of academic writing approving his methodology. The psychologist's views were based on one-sided information and doubted that the assessment of levels of happiness or unhappiness was a task for an expert rather than jurors.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Michael Ward, Russell Andrews, Wayne Broadley; CACD 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 02 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Crim 80
Michael Joseph Butler v Director of Public Prosecutions; CACD 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 14 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Crim 76
