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: 2004 To: 2004
This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Hayes [2004] EWCA Crim 2844; [2005] 1 Cr App R 33
2004
CACD
Criminal Evidence
The court was asked to consider whether a letter written by the appellant's solicitor admitting the appellant had inflicted injury could be admitted as a previous inconsistent statement at the trial when he denied causing the injury. Held: It had been admitted properly. The appellant's solicitor was his agent and had ostensible authority to write a letter; no competent solicitor would have written such a letter without instructions to do so. The letter was therefore in principle admissible, subject to considerations under section 78.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 194 878
1 Citers
Regina v Levin Times, 20 February 2004
29 Jan 2004
CACD
Rose LJ, Poole, Davis JJ
Criminal Evidence
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, challenging the standard of proof applied by the judge. Held: The judge was entitled to include in his consideration, the evidence given at the trial as well as that on the confiscation application. He was to apply the civil standard of proof. That power was in 71(7A), which was a clear change by Parliament. The civil standard now applies, the court may make far-reaching assumptions; could require information from a defendant and draw inferences from any failure to reply, and rely on evidence from the trial and information properly obtained bfore the trial.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(7A) Part IV
1 Cites
Regina v Boyles [2004] NICA 2
4 Feb 2004
CANI
Criminal Evidence
[ Bailii ]
Webb v The United Kingdom 56054/00; Unreported, 10 February 2004
10 Feb 2004
ECHR
Human Rights, Criminal Evidence
The Court rejected the applicant's contention that the proceedings involved a "criminal charge" and resulted in the imposition of a penalty or punishment. The forfeiture was preventative and not a penal sanction. Accordingly it was permissible that, pursuant to section 43(3), the standard of proof required to justify forfeiture was that applicable to civil proceedings.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 43(3)
1 Citers
McGibbon and Corstorphine v Her Majesty's Advocate [2004] ScotHC 13; 2004 SCCR 193; 2004 JC 60
19 Feb 2004
HCJ
Lord Johnston And Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Wheatley
Criminal Evidence, Police, Human Rights
It was conceded that there had been a breach of article 8 in the obtaining of covert video and audio recordings of the appellants' incriminating conversations. Held: If there was a breach by the police of article 8, it did not follow that the evidence thereby obtained was inadmissible. Any breach of article 8 in the obtaining of the evidence was due to acts of the police, not the Lord Advocate.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill said that the act that was relevant to section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 was the act of the Lord Advocate in leading the evidence.
Police Act 1997 - European Convention on Human Rights 6 8 - Scotland Act 1998 57(2)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Brizzalari v Regina Times, 03 March 2004; [2004] EWCA Crim 310
19 Feb 2004
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Penry-Davey Mr Justice Hedley
Criminal Evidence
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that failure. The judge endorsed that view to the jury. It was also argued that the committal had been defective. Held: The committal had not been so defective as to create an injustice. The judge was free to leave such a claim to the jury, but prosecutors were to be encouraged not to invite such inferences too freely: "the mischief at which the provision was primarily directed was the positive defence following a "no comment" interview and/or the "ambush" defence"
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
1 Cites
1 Citers
Gibbins, Regina v [2004] EWCA Crim 311
20 Feb 2004
CACD
Criminal Evidence
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Nottle; CACD 25-Feb-2004 - [2004] EWCA Crim 599
Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court Times, 22 April 2004; [2004] EWHC 905 (Admin); [2004] ACD 50
5 Apr 2004
QBD
Gage J, Keith J
Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice
The defendant was charged with incitement to distribute indecent images of children. He complained that the evidence relied upon were print-outs of pages on a web-site, being hearsay, and inadmissible as evidence not merely of the computer but of a human mind entering the information. Held: The evidence was admissible as real evidence, applying Spiby. At this stage the prosecutor had only to establish a prima facie case. This was not a case where the defendant was being accused of inciting a computer, but rather of using the computer to incite another to provide the service.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v E; CACD 26-Apr-2004 - Times, 27 May 2004; [2004] EWCA Crim 1243; [2004] 1 WLR 3279; [2004] 2 Cr App R 29
Ali Sed v Regina [2004] EWCA Crim 1294; Times, 08 July 2004
27 May 2004
CACD
Lord Justice Auld Sir Edwin Jowitt Mr Justice Elias
Criminal Evidence
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 would have been competent to give evidence had she been able to attend physically. S23 had no relevance to testing the competence of the swimmer. In this case the complainant suffered Alzheimers, but had appreciated why she was being questioned, and had repeatedly complained of the assault. She was not required to understand every question put to her or for all her answers to be understood.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 85 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 23
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Luttrell; Regina v Dawson; Regina v Hamberger Times, 09 June 2004; [2004] EWCA Crim 1344; [2004] 2 Cr App R 31
28 May 2004
CACD
Rose LJ
Criminal Evidence
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."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Gardner; CACD 28-Jun-2004 - [2004] EWCA Crim 1639
Hampton and Another v The Crown [2004] EWCA Crim 2139
30 Jul 2004
CACD
Hooper LJ, Aikens, Fulford JJ
Criminal Evidence
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. Evidence had been admitted as to the identification of a car from a memory of the registration mark by a witness. Held: The evidence was properly admitted without a Turnbull direction: " No recognised basis exists for suggesting that this type of evidence needs to be approached with special caution: it has not been established that the introduction of evidence of this kind in the past has caused particular injustice or that witnesses mistaken as to this kind of detail can also be convincing in a special way that calls for a Turnbull type direction. A witness who gives evidence of the details of a number plate is performing exactly the same role as a witness who, for instance, describes the number of punches delivered during a fight, whether traffic lights were green or red before a collision, or whether there were four or five masked men present during an armed robbery."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Benn and Benn v Regina [2004] EWCA Crim 2100
30 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Latham Mr Justice Beatson
Criminal Evidence
The defendants appealed against convictions for importing drugs. The evidence was circumstantial, including evidence of contamination of paper money with cocaine. New evidnce suggested the original forensic techniques had returned many false positives. Held: In large part these criticisms had been available to and properly commented upon in the trial. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Antar Times, 04 November 2004
28 Oct 2004
CACD
Clarke LJ, Gibbs J, Stanley Burnton J
Criminal Evidence
The defendant appealed against his conviction for conspiracy to rob, saying that the court should have admitted evidence from a medical report confirming his low IQ, and the likelhood of his being suggestible during police interview, and also that he had been acting under duress. Held: The defendant had been shown in tests under the Gudjinsson Suggestibility scale that he would change his answers under pressure more readily than would most of the population. That evidence was important and should have been admitted. The conviction was unsafe.