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. Â
Criminal Evidence - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 13 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
ÂRegina v D [2003] QB 90; [2002] EWCA Crim 990
2002
CACD
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights
Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention does impose an absolute prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence against criminal defendants.
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Compton [2002] EWCA Crim 2835
2002
CACD
Buxton LJ
Criminal Evidence
The court considered criticisms of forensic evidence: ". . When reading Mr Bottomley's report, and hearing his evidence in chief, we had the greatest difficulty in discerning how in fact he criticised MSA's methodology; and in cross-examination it became clear that he did not do so. In response to Mr Shay Mr Bottomley confirmed that he had no criticism of the techniques used by MSA; no criticism of the scientific competence of MSA's scientists; and no reason to doubt the accuracy of the readings obtained by MSA . ."
1 Citers
Â
 Regina v D; CACD 2002 - [2002] 2 Cr App R 36
Â
Regina v Davies (Keith) Times, 04 March 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 85; [2002] 1 WLR 1806
23 Jan 2002
CACD
May, Goldring, Gross LLJ
Criminal Evidence
The defendant had obtained a psychiatric report through his solicitors. The report was adverse, and he did not call the expert. Instead the Crown applied and had the same expert give evidence. He appealed against his conviction. Held: The doctor's position, having been instructed by the solicitors for the purposes of the proceedings, was privileged as was the solicitor's own knowledge. There is no property in a witness, but his evidence relied upon material protected by privilege. The defendant was to be protected from accidentally incriminating himself, and he was entitled to assume that what was said to a doctor instructed by his lawyers was just as protected as what was said to them.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 10(1)(b)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
Regina v Tully [2002] EWCA Crim 18
25 Jan 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Kay Mr Justice Mackay And The Recorder Of Chester
Criminal Evidence
The defendant appealed a conviction for the attempted murder of his wife. It had been said that he had killed her, then set fire to the house. She gave evidence in his defence, but certain parts of her evidence were excluded. She had suffered retrograde amnesia, and had sought counselling help to recover her memory. The defendant said the evidence of her flashbacks should have been admitted, and sought to have further evidence admitted on appeal. Held: The 1968 Act required new evidence on appeal to establish that evidence could not have been put forward at the trial. Although elements could, the evidence now available was greater in extent than was available at trial. However the further evidence was better explained by her inability to consider the possibility of her husband's guilt. It was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to admit the evidence from the victim.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23
[ Bailii ]
Â
Visser v The Netherlands 26668/95; [2002] ECHR 108
14 Feb 2002
ECHR
Mr L. Caflisch, President, Mr P. Kuris, Mr R. Türmen, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs W. Thomassen, Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, Mrs H.S. Greve
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
The applicant alleged that in criminal proceedings against him, there was used in evidence a statement from an anonymous witness, and his defence rights had been unacceptably restricted in breach of Article 6. The police said that witnesses were frightened of reprisals. On appeal, the court allowed as evidence a written summary from the police. On appeal again, that decision was set aside, but a witness was interrogated by the judge in private, with the judge putting questions for the defence. The applicant's conviction was to a decisive extent based on the anonymous testimony, yet such evidence should not be used to that extent. Breaches were established.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 Art 3(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Â
Connor v Her Majesty's Advocate [2002] ScotHC 26
13 Mar 2002
HCJ
Criminal Evidence
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Regina v McDonald; 23-Apr-2002 - Unreported 23 April 2002
Â
Regina v D (Video testimony) Times, 21 May 2002; Gazette, 07 June 2002
3 May 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Pitchers and Judge Crawford, QC
Criminal Evidence
The defendant appealed against his conviction after the judge had admitted evidence, judging it proper to admit the evidence in the light of the section which was not yet in force. The complainant was an elderly lady suffering from Alzheimer's, the allegation was of rape, and it was sought to admit her video evidence. Held: The judge had applied the test of incapacity from the section, namely that a person was not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appeared to the court that he was not a person who was able to understand the questions put to him as a witness and give answers to them which could be understood. That test was the correct test, even if the section was not yet in force.
Complainant with Alzheimer's disease - competence as a witness -admissibility of video testimony
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 53(3)
Â
SN v Sweden 34209/96; [2002] ECHR 546; [2002] ECHR 551; ECHR 2002 V
2 Jul 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
A trial involving a child witness was conducted by the video-recording of an interview conducted by a police officer with the child complainant, and an audio-recording of a second interview conducted by the same police officer, putting questions which he had been asked by the accused's counsel to put. Held: Despite the fact that counsel had had no opportunity to question the child directly, no violation of article 6(3)(d) was found The Court reiterated "that evidence obtained from a witness under conditions in which the rights of the defence cannot be secured to the extent normally required by the Convention should be treated with extreme care"; but it was satisfied that the national court had done just that.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Â
Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2002) Times, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 2373; [2003] 1 Cr App R 321; [2003] Crim LR 192
7 Oct 2002
CACD
Rose, Pitchers, Treacy LLJ
Criminal Evidence
The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not accepted as expert evidence. The defendants said the tapes should have been left to speak for themselves. Held: The officers' evidence should have been accepted. Photographic evidence could be admitted in four situations, where the image itself was sufficiently clear to allow the jury to make its own direct comparison, where the witness himself knew the defendant, where the witness had spent sufficient time examining images from the scene to have acquired special knowledge, and where an expert with facial mapping skills could use the skills to assist the identification. The officers' evidence could have been admitted.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Regina v Hardy (Brian); Regina v Hardy (Danny); CACD 31-Oct-2002 - Times, 18 November 2002; Gazette, 19 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Crim 3012
Â
Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Crim 2838; [2002] 1 WLR 796; [2003] Crim LR 403; [2003] 1 Cr App Rep 38
22 Nov 2002
CACD
Keene, LJ, Forbes, Rant JJ
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Criminal Evidence, Crime
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable. Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary disclosure, where a defence statement might be of assistance to the co-defendants. Actual disclosure remained for the judgement of the prosecution. A court was not under a duty not to admit evidence which might be in whole or in part unreliable. It was necessary to construe legislation to accord with a defendant's human rights, and the statements should have been disclosed.
The defendants had been convicted of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Two defendants appealed saying that court had been wrong to suggest that a co-defendant's evidence was reliable as regards themselves, but unreliable as regards other witnesses. Mrs Cairns said that she had acted under the marital coercion of the same witness. Held: "The prosecution may properly call a witness when they rely on one part of his evidence but not on another part. Whether they choose to call such a witness is a matter for their discretion . . But that does not amount to an attack on their own witness's credit."
In the light of that the prosecution was entitled to exercise its discretion, as it did. It was not a perverse or unreasonable exercise of discretion and the judge was right not to interfere with it. Nor was the calling Barry Cairns an abuse of process. The court had followed the Makanjuola guidelines, and the appeal on that basis failed.
The judge had exercised a proper discretion in not allowing separate trials.
As to the defence of marital coercion, the judge's direction was incorrect as to the meaning of coercion in not allowing clearly that such coercion may operate without physical violence. Also, following Jespers, the court should have disclosed the defence statements of two of the co-accusd since this would have assisted Mrs Cairns in her defence. Her appeal was allowed, but not that of the co-defendants.
Human Rights Act 1998 3(1) - Criminal Justice Act 1967 17 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78 - Criminal Justice Act 1925 47 - Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 5(5) 7(2
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Â