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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Havering Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Regina v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Mckeown Times, 07 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 805
7 Feb 2001
QBD
Criminal Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights
A magistrate considering an allegation of breach of bail, need not take account only of evidence which was strictly admissible. The Magistrates must take proper account of the evidential quality of what was presented, but it was not a breach of the defendant's article 5 rights to hear the case on this basis. The standards applicable under article 6 need not be the same as those under this article. In the absence of a power to adjourn, where the magistrates considered there was a need for an adjournment, then they should not detain the defendant, since this indicated a failure to establish the allegation to the requisite degree.
Bail Act 1976 - Human Rights Act 1998
1 Citers
Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham; Admn 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 582
Regina v Feltham Magistrate's Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 21-Feb-2001 - Times, 27 February 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1293; [2001] 2 Cr App R 23; [2001] EWHC Admin 130; [2002] RTR 7; [2001] 1 All ER 831; [2001] Crim LR 741
Regina v Hardwick Times, 28 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 369; [2001] 3 Archbold News 2
28 Feb 2001
CACD
Criminal Evidence
The judge has a discretion as to the admission of the written statement made by a witness who had died before trial. Held: The circumstances must vary, according not least to the nature of the issue on which the deceased's evidence was required. Simple rules could not always apply, but sufficient and proper warning should be given to the jury about the dangers of relying upon untested evidence. In this case no issue arose as to alibi or identification or intimidation.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 23
1 Citers
Regina v Y (Sexual Offence: Complainant's Sexual History) Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 13 February 2001
8 Mar 2001
CACD
Criminal Evidence
A defendant in an allegation alleging a sexual offence and wanting to introduce evidence of the complainant's sexual history, could not do so as evidence of the consent of the complainant. He may be able to do so however on the issue of his own belief as to her consent, and where he alleged recent consensual sex. The consequence might be a summing up with more of a flavour of Lewis Carroll than a rehearsal of jurisprudence, but this was the only way of reconciling the need for a fair trial, and the legislation protecting complainants.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35 - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
Regina v A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister) Times, 21 March 2001
21 Mar 2001
HL
Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant's sexual history. Though the Crown would conduct the appeal, the Home Secretary, whose Act was in issue sought to be joined. The case was still in anticipation of the trial, and the rules anticipated notice being served when such a declaration was considered. Nevertheless, the proposal would improve efficiency, and the Director of Public Prosecutions served a different function in the appeal. The Home Secretary could be allowed to be joined at this stage.
Human Rights Act 1998 5 41 - Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2036) - Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
1 Citers
Attorney-General's Reference (No 7 of 2000) Times, 12 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1879; [2001] 2 CAR 19; [2001] EWCA Crim 888; [2001] BPIR 953; [2001] 2 Cr App R 19; [2001] 2 CAR 19; [2001] HRLR 41; [2001] Crim LR 736
29 Mar 2001
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Rougier LJ, McCombe LJ
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights
The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Insolvency Act. Evidence of his gambling was found in cheque stubs, bank statements, returned cheques and a betting file containing loose gambling statements by way of computer print outs produced by Ladbrokes and a bookmaker's schedule of gambling transactions. The bankrupt had not contributed himself to any of these documents. He was required to produce these documents to the Official Receiver under the provisions of section 291 of the Insolvency Act which carried with it the sanction of proceedings for contempt of court punishable with up to two years imprisonment under sub-section (6) of that section. He handed them over. The question was, whether the admission of such documents was unfair, when they did not, themselves, contain statements obtained from the defendant under compulsion. Held: The prosecutor's appeal against an order allowing the claim for privilege succeeded. The privilege against self-incrimination was not absolute, and assorted statutes had infringed that right. The Saunders case at the ECHR had distinguished between statements obtained from the accused, and documents, and other material, which were independent of the statement. That distinction was appropriate, and the use of such documents did not infringe the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Insolvency Act 1986 291 (1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Loveridge (William); Regina v Lee (Charles Sonny); Regina v Loveridge (Christine) Times, 03 May 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001
3 May 2001
CACD
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights
The police took secret videos of defendants whilst in the cells at the local Magistrates Court. The prosecution later sought to use the videos in identifying the defendants as participants in another crime. The filming was both unlawful under the Act, and an improper invasion of their privacy. The making of a video was included within the taking of a photograph under the Act. The filming was a breach of the defendants' article 8 human rights. Nevertheless, the infringement did not affect the fairness of the eventual proceedings, and accordingly the evidence was properly admitted, and the convictions stood.
Criminal Justice Act 1925 41 - Human Rights Act 1998
Regina v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2); HL 17-May-2001 - Times, 24 May 2001; [2001] UKHL 25; [2001] 3 All ER 1; [2001] 2 WLR 1586; [2002] 1 AC 45; [2001] UKHRR 825; (2001) 165 JPN 750; [2001] HRLR 48; [2001] Cr App R 21; 11 BHRC 225; (2001) 165 JP 609
Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2000 Times, 27 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 1214; [2001] EWCA Crim 1214
27 Jun 2001
CACD
Criminal Evidence
The test of whether the behaviour of undercover police officers in instigating offending by the defendant crossed the line, so as to justify exclusion of their evidence, remains that the court must look at the extent of freedom of choice left to the defendant, and the propriety or otherwise of the officer's actions. Did the officer, whether by active or passive means, do more than to afford to the defendant the opportunity to offend? Here the judge had also been wrong to exclude evidence of the defendant's past behaviour where it's nature was of direct relevance to the offence in question.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Lambert; HL 5-Jul-2001 - Times, 06 July 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 206; [2001] UKHL 37; [2002] 2 AC 545; [2002] 1 All ER 2; [2001] HRLR 55; [2001] 2 Cr App R 28; [2001] UKHRR 1074; [2001] 3 All ER 577
Regina v H Regina v W Regina v M Times, 06 July 2001
6 Jul 2001
CACD
Criminal Evidence
The witness had given three statements to police officers. Some time before the trial, the defendant was released, and the witness gave a further statement declining to give evidence on the basis that he was frightened for himself and his family of reprisals. By the time of the trial, it had been three months since he had been seen. The trial judge admitted the written statements. On appeal the defendants argued that they should not have been admitted without evidence as to the state of the witness' mind at the date of the trial. The appeal court agreed. What mattered was not the historical state of fear, but its presence or absence at the date of the trial. Each case was to be approached according to its own circumstances. Officers should give evidence as to the efforts made to persuade the witness to attend. Consideration should also be given to the use of video links and other ways of ameliorating the fear.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 26
Regina v Charles; CACD 19-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1698
Regina v Stephen Anthony Trutch, and Jeanne Mary Trutch [2001] EWCA Crim 1750
25 Jul 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell, Mr Justice Silber
Criminal Evidence
The defendants had been pursued in substantial commercial litigation. They were alleged to have perjured themselves in affidavits of means sworn and filed at court. Later they had entered into deeds with the other parties, and part of the consideration was an agreement by those other parties not to pursue them for perjury. The defendants claimed a common interest privilege as a basis for excluding the affidavits. That failed because that privilege applied as between those on the same side of a case, and that did not apply here. Nor was there any restriction on their use by any implied undertaking in the civil proceedings. No confidentiality applied, either in the proceedings or in the deed of settlement. They claimed the proceedings were an abuse of process. However the evidence had not been obtained oppressively, because no confidence existed in them. Special applications had been made under PACE, but again there had been no confidence to protect. Nor had any legitimate expectation been created by the deed. There was no compulsion, and the defendants were in receipt of legal advice.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76, 78
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Sargent Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 54; [2003] 1 AC 347; [2002] 1 All ER 161; [2002] 1 Cr App R 26; [2001] 3 WLR 992
25 Oct 2001
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Criminal Evidence
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
Interception of Communications Act 1985 1 9(2)(c) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v Botmeh; Regina v Alami Times, 08 November 2001; Gazette, 29 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 2226
1 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Goldring
Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Crime
In an appeal, the Crown sought leave to apply ex parte to have make certain information subject of a public interest immunity certificate. The defence argued that that was possible only on a first instance hearing. Held: The procedures were available, and would not infringe the defendant's human rights. There was nothing in the Court of Human rights jurisprudence to say that admission of such new evidence at the Court of Appeal would infringe the defendant's right to a fair trial. The defence has no absolute right to disclosure of relevant evidence and that strictly necessary measures restricting the rights of the defence were permissible, provided they were counterbalanced by procedures followed by judicial authority.
Crown Court (Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) (Disclosure) Rules 1997 (SI 1997 No 698)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
