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 Practice - From: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 58 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Tan Soon Yin v Judge Cameron and Another [1992] 2 AC 205; [1993] 2 All ER 493; [1992] 3 WLR 249; (1993) 96 Cr App R 172
1992
PC
Lord Mustill
Criminal Practice
The power at common law to impose a stay on a criminal matter is discretionary, and a stay "should only be employed in exceptional circumstances".
The task for the courts is to decide: 'whether, in all the circumstances, the situation created by the delay is such as to make it an unfair employment of the powers of the court any longer to hold the defendant to account.' . . And 'Naturally the longer the delay the more likely it will be that the prosecution is at fault, and that the delay has caused prejudice to the defendant; and the less that the prosecution has to offer by explanation, the more easily can fault be inferred. But the establishment of these facts is only one step on the way to a consideration of whether, in all the circumstances , the situation created by the delay is such as to make it an unfair employment of the powers of the Court any longer to hold the defendant to account. This is a question to be decided in the round, and nothing is to be gained by the introduction of shifting burdens of proof, which serves only to break down into formal steps what is in reality a single appreciation of what is or is not unfair.'
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Clowes; CCC 1992 - [1992] 3 All ER 440
 
Regina v Buono (1992) 95 Cr App R 338
1992
CACD

Criminal Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order); Re A (No 1 of 1991) [1993] QB 293; [1992] 3 All ER 429; [1992] 3 WLR 662; (1992) 95 Cr App R 288
1992
CA
Macpherson J
Legal Professions, Criminal Practice
The section provided that the Court could order a legal practitioner to pay "wasted costs", which were defined as costs incurred by a party "as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative". The barrister appealed against the order made. Held: The court adopted the practice of not naming barristers subject to applications for wasted costs orders.
The Court recommended a three-stage test or approach when contemplating an order under s.19A. Macpherson J said: "A three stage test or approach is recommended when a wasted costs order is contemplated.
(i) Has there been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission?
(ii) As a result have any costs been incurred by a party?
(iii) If the answers to (i) and (ii) are 'Yes,' should the court exercise its discretion to disallow or order the representative to meet the whole or any part of the relevant costs, and if so what specific sum is involved?"
. . And "There is a clear need for any judge or court intending to exercise the wasted costs jurisdiction to formulate carefully and concisely the complaint and ground upon which such an order may be sought. These measures are draconian, and, as in contempt proceedings, the grounds must be clear and particular."
rosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A
1 Citers


 
McFadyen v Annan [1992] JC 53; [1992] CLY 5466; 1992 SLT 163
1992


Scotland, Criminal Practice
The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair. Held: The question should be whether the delay would so prejudice the prospects of a fair trial to the extent that any such trial would be oppressive. A former, two stage, test was no longer to be followed. Delay before as well as after proceedings were begun could be looked at. In this case there was no such risk of prejudice from any delay.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Rossiter (1992) 95 Cr App R 326; [1994] 2 All ER 752
1992
CACD
Russell LJ
Criminal Practice
The defendant was charged with a murder. The very manner of the killing suggested that he was at the time of the killing in a state of uncontrolled frenzy. However, Russell LJ said: "We take the law to be that wherever there is material which is capable of amounting to provocation, however tenuous it may be, the jury must be given the privilege of ruling upon it."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v McLernon [1992] NI 168
1992
CANI
Hutton LCJ, Higgins and Carswell JJ
Criminal Practice
D argued that the words "any fact relied on in his defence" in article 3 meant that it could apply only where a fact which the accused relied on was advanced by the accused in the witness box at the trial, or by a witness called at the trial on behalf of the accused. He also argued that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had merely relied on the weakness of the prosecution case. Held: "art 3 permits the court to draw an inference, not only at the trial in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, but also by virtue of art 3(2)(a) in determining 'whether there is a case to answer' . . the trial judge can draw an inference against the accused in ruling on an application by the accused for a direction that he has no case to answer before the accused, or any witness on his behalf, has been called to give evidence." and "at a trial the accused can 'rely on a fact in his defence' within the meaning of art 3 even though neither he nor a witness called on his behalf has given evidence of that fact."
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3
1 Citers


 
Regina v Mendy [1992] Crim LR 313
1992


Criminal Practice
After a long fraud trial a majority direction was given. The foreman returned a verdict of guilty on count 1. He answered the question whether this was a verdict of "you all or by a majority", "By a majority of us all." A disturbance at the back of the court drowned part of the foreman's answer and no one noted that the verdict was other than unanimous. The defendant argued that the majority verdict provisions in section 17(3) had not been complied with. The Crown argued that the foreman was to be understood as saying that the jury were unanimous. Held: The foreman's answer was ambiguous and that ambiguity had to be resolved in favour of the defendant.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Vincent Munnery [1992] 94 Cr App R 164
1992
CACD
Mustill LJ
Criminal Practice
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty's department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence. Held: "Quite clearly there is nothing in these decisions to sustain the argument for the appellant that the law admits of only two situations in which further evidence may be called, and that the Court in Francis ( supra) was wrong to open up a more general discretion in its proposition (7). Quite the reverse. They demonstrate, as would be expected, that the judge must be left with some degree of freedom to meet the various and unpredictable problems which may arise during a trial. Our only hesitation is whether the extra cases might perhaps have led the court to state its seventh proposition in rather less restrictive terms. On balance we think not, although it might perhaps be expanded by the addition, after the concluding words, of '..especially when the evidence is tendered after the case for the defendant has begun'." and "These are important considerations which the judge must always bear in mind, but they are not necessarily conclusive. Tactics are a legitimate part of the adversarial process, but justice is what matters: justice to the public, represented by the prosecution, as well as to the defendant. Undeniably, if he had declined to admit the evidence he could not have been criticised. The question is whether by letting it in he stepped outside the reasonable bounds of the discretion and thereby created a real risk of injustice."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Samuel and others; CACD 1992 - [1992] Crim L R 189

 
 Regina v Maguire; CACD 1992 - [1992] 2 All ER 433; [1992] QB 936; (1992) 94 Cr App Rep 133; [2006] EWCA Crim 1239
 
Regina v McKechnie (1992) 94 Cr App R 51
1992


Criminal Practice
When a judge intends to provide an explanatory note for a jury, he should provide a copy to counsel in advance with sufficient opportunity for them to consider and comment on it.
1 Citers


 
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
1992
HCA
Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Criminal Practice
(Australia) Mason CJ said: "A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to convict the accused. See R v Bartels (1986) 44 SASR [260] at pp 270-271; cf R v Goode [1970] SASR 69, at p 77. The judge must direct the jury on the assumption that they may decide to convict solely on the basis of the identification evidence. If a trial judge has failed to give an adequate warning concerning identification, a new trial will ordinarily be ordered even when other evidence makes a very strong case against the accused. See R v Gaunt [1964] NSWR 864, at p 867. Of course, the other evidence in the case may be so compelling that a court of criminal appeal will conclude that the jury must have convicted on that evidence independently of the identification evidence. In such a case, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning the identification evidence, although amounting to legal error, will not constitute a miscarriage of justice. But unless the Court of Criminal Appeal concludes that the jury must inevitably have convicted the accused independently of the identification evidence, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning that evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice even though the other evidence made a strong case against the accused."
1 Citers


 
ex parte Godwin [1992] 1 QB 190
1992
CA
Glidewell LJ
Media, Criminal Practice
An order had been made to include provision that "the names and addresses of the defendants shall . . not be revealed or published". The court was now asked whether a criminal court had power under section 39 of the CYP Act to prohibit in terms the publication of the name of the adult defendant. Held: A criminal court had no such power. Glidewell LJ said: "We are persuaded that the arguments for the appellants are correct. In our view section 39 as a matter of law does not empower a court to order in terms that the names of defendants be not published. It may be that on occasions judges who are concerned with making an order of this kind will think that it will be helpful to have some discussion about the identification of particular details and may give advice. Our combined experience is that judges in the Crown Court not infrequently give advice which representatives of the media invariably respect. But we are here concerned with the formality of what may be contained in an order under section 39. In our view, the order itself must be restricted to the terms of section 39(1), either specifically using those terms or using words to the like effect and no more."
and "it is a normal principle of law that defendants in criminal proceedings should be named. Statute has on occasion given the courts power to make an order to the contrary, but only in most exceptional circumstances. Indeed . . it is obvious that a major reason for the principle is that the very fact of being named is itself a powerful part of the deterrent effect of a prosecution. The prospect of being named, in other words, is a deterrent to other people who may be tempted to commit any sort of offence."
Children and Young Persons Act 1988 39
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Bow Street Metroplitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 1992 - [1992] 95 Cr App R 9; [1993] 2 WLR 621
 
Regina v Beck ex parte The Daily Telegraph, Ex parte The Telegraph Plc [1992] 94 CAR 376
1992


Criminal Practice, Media

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Citers


 
In Re London United Investments Plc [1992] Ch 578
1992
CA

Criminal Practice, Company
The privilege against self-incrimination was impliedly excluded by the terms of a statute which conferred power on company inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to require documents and answers to questions from any person whom they consider may have relevant information.
1 Citers


 
Bank of England v Riley [1992] Ch 475
1992


Banking, Criminal Practice
Exercise of the right of privilege against self-incrimination.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Crown Court at Norwich ex parte Belsham; QBD 1992 - (1992) 94 Cr App R 382

 
 Regina v Sutton Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions; Admn 1992 - [1992] 2 All ER 129
 
Regina v JAK [1992] Crim LR 31
1992
CACD
Ognall J
Criminal Practice
The defendant was accused of rape and other indecent assaults going back some 20 years. He appealed against a refusal of a stay on the grounds of abuse of process given the very long delay before any complaint was made. Held: The application should have been granted and a stay was ordered. The test was whether a fair trial would be possible. In this case, the delay had been very long, and there was no physical evidence, only oral testimony, and the defence would be artificially restricted also in its scope to cross examine the complainants.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Birmingham and Others; 1992 - [1992] Crim LR 117
 
Thomassy v France [1992] 15 EHRR 1
1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The court emphasised the need for a court refusing bail to give reasons. In refusing bail, there was a requirement to examine all the circumstances arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, having due regard to presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule and respect for individual liberty.
1 Citers



 
 Griffith v Jenkins and Another; HL 29-Jan-1992 - Gazette, 29 January 1992
 
Pfeifer And Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; 10802/84; [1992] ECHR 2
25 Feb 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice
Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from whether it was ‘impartial’ and held that it was not. The Court held that the two complaints coincided: the court was not established by law because of the disqualification which national law had imposed so as to remove all reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of trial courts. Hence there was a breach of Article 6(1) (and there had not been an effective waiver of the applicant’s rights). In order to be effective, a waiver must be made without undue compulsion, and the consent must be an informed one. Regard must be had to the character or nature of the right when a decision is made as to whether the person was given sufficient information about that right for him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should waive it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Redbridge Justices ex parte Whitehouse Gazette, 04 March 1992
4 Mar 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
A further charge may be used to ensure trial at the Crown Court, but care was needed.

 
Regina v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Ex Parte Smith Gazette, 11 March 1992
11 Mar 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
The Serious Fraud Office may interview a defendant after he has been charged, but must give the caution and act accordingly and with caution.
Criminal Law Act 1987 2(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Ali, Regina v Rasool (Mauritius); PC 25-Mar-1992 - Gazette, 25 March 1992
 
Regina v Brindle and Brindle Unreported, 31 March 1992
31 Mar 1992
CCC
His Honour Judge Denison QC
Criminal Practice
The court permitted three witnesses to give evidence anonymously in a murder trial, even though this would impose "some inhibition on the full and proper presentation of the defence" but holding that "if the wider interests of justice make it necessary for anonymity . . then the interests of the defence must be subordinated to those wider interests".
1 Citers


 
Ponsamy Poongavanam v Regina
6 Apr 1992
PC
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Commonwealth, Constitutional
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed conviction on the ground that the jury had been all male. Women being effectively excluded from jury service in Mauritius. The question was whether, having regard to the composition of the jury, the appellant's trial violated a provision in the Constitution of Mauritius. Held: There was no basis for concluding that the justification for the means of selecting juries no longer had an objective justification. The board referred to the "fair cross-section" requirement adopted in the American case law. Whether such a broad principle can be derived from the Constitution of Mauritius depends upon the construction of the word "impartial". The Constitution was concerned with the actual tribunal by which the case is tried and with the impartiality of that tribunal. The American principle was directed to the representative character of the jury list. "Whether the jurisprudence on Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights is likely to develop in that direction, is very difficult to foresee; but any such development would require a substantial piece of creative interpretation which has the effect of expanding the meaning of the words of Article 6(1) beyond their ordinary meaning."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Horne Gazette, 15 April 1992
15 Apr 1992
CACD

Criminal Practice
A re-trial was quashed after the prosecution had failed to re-arraign the defendant within the applicable time limit.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 8

 
Regina v Devine Unreported, 13 May 1992
13 May 1992
CANI
Hutton LCJ
Criminal Practice
The trial judge had drawn an adverse inference under article 3. The defendant complained that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had simply tested the prosecution case. Held: "in this case it cannot be said that the accused 'relied on a fact in his defence' within the meaning of article 3(1)(a) because all that defence counsel did was to probe the prosecution case, without suggesting a fact which the accused relied on to a prosecution witness".
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3
1 Citers


 
Regina v Liverpool Justices ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions Gazette, 13 May 1992
13 May 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
Single magistrate may deal with applications in breach of bail hearings.
Bail Act 1976 7(5)

 
Regina v Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court ex parte Salinger Gazette, 27 May 1992
27 May 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
Order to produce evidence to court to be supported by description of basis.
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 7(3)


 
 Regina v Gough; CACD 2-Jun-1992 - Gazette, 08 July 1992

 
 Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1990); CACD 3-Jun-1992 - Gazette, 03 June 1992; [1992] 3 All ER 169; [1992] QB 630; [1992] 95 Crim App 296
 
Regina v Grafton Gazette, 03 June 1992
3 Jun 1992
CACD

Criminal Practice
Judge not entitled to continue prosecution despite abandonment by prosecution.

 
Ludi v Switzerland [1992] ECHR 50; 12433/86; (1992) 15 EHRR 173; [1992] ECHR 50; [1992] ECHR 50; [1992] ECHR 50
15 Jun 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The claimant challenged his conviction of a drug trafficking offence. The evidence against him consisted mainly of a report by an anonymous undercover agent and transcripts of telephone intercepts of calls between the agent and the applicant. Neither the applicant nor his advocates were given the opportunity directly to question the agent. They wished to demonstrate the extent to which the applicant had been induced or entrapped to commit the offence. Held: The witness could have been called in a way which could have preserved that witnesses' anonymity, and thus there had been a violation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Bow Street Magistrate, Ex Parte Welcombe Gazette, 29 July 1992; Gazette, 24 June 1992
24 Jun 1992
QBD

Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Once a plea withdrawal had been accepted it was inescapable that mode of trial also fell to be reconsidered.

 
Regina v Aitken; Regina v Bennett; Regina v Barson Gazette, 08 July 1992; [1992] 1 WLR 1006
8 Jul 1992
CMAC

Criminal Practice, Armed Forces
Recommendation to change rules allowing judge advocate to sit alone when the question is solely an issue of law.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Luton Crown Court ex parte Neaves Gazette, 08 July 1992
8 Jul 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
Protection of defendant may be 'good and sufficient cause' to extend custody.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22


 
 Regina v Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex Parte Smith; HL 15-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 15 July 1992; [1992] 3 All ER 456; [1992] 3 WLR 66; [1993] AC 1; [1992] BCLC 879
 
Berry v The Queen Gazette, 15 July 1992; [1992] 2 AC 364
15 Jul 1992
PC

Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
(Jamaica) A failure to comply with Jamaica's own rules on disclosure was a material irregularity. Where credibility is in issue, a good character direction is always relevant.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Ward (Judith); CACD 15-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 15 July 1992; [1993] 1 WLR 619; (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1
 
Regina v Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte South West Shipping and Others Gazette, 22 July 1992; [1993] QB 645
22 Jul 1992
QBD
Lloyd LJ
Criminal Practice
Rights to private prosecution and takeover by DPP were examined: "Section 3(2) and section 6 [of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985] make a coherent and consistent framework in which the right of a private citizen to bring a prosecution is preserved but subject always to the Director's right to intervene at any stage. It provides a useful and effective safeguard against 'improper action' by the prosecuting authority. (I quote from the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1981) (Cmnd. 8092), p. 161, para. 7.50)." "If there is evidence that a defendant has been guilty of an offence, then a desire to see him prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished is not an improper motive, especially where the prosecutor is one of the bereaved. Even if Mr Glogg's motives were mixed, the court should be slow to halt a prosecution unless the conduct of the prosecution is truly oppressive: see Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, 1301, per Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Reg. v. Humphrys [1977] A.C. 1, 46, per Lord Salmon. The law was correctly stated on this point by Mann LJ in Reg. v. Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan [1991] 2 QB 78, 90." and "They have no power to refuse to embark on an inquiry because they think that a prosecution should not have been brought because it is, for example, mean-minded, petty or animated by hostility. It is for this reason that the powers of the justices are said to be 'very strictly confined'."
Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 3(2)(a) 3(2)(c) 3(2)(d)
1 Citers


 
Regina v Maguire (Joseph) Gazette, 22 July 1992
22 Jul 1992
CACD

Criminal Practice
Right of appeal against conviction for contempt for breach of bail.
Bail Act 1976 6(5)


 
 Regina v Cox; 18-Sep-1992 - (Unreported), 18 September 1992; Times, 02 December 1992; [1992] CLY 886
 
Regina v Ely Justices Ex Parte Burgess Gazette, 23 September 1992
23 Sep 1992
QBD

Criminal Practice
Justices inspecting a scene must choose methods which appear and remain fair to the defendant.

 
Applications to Admit Video Recordings of Child Witness Testimony Gazette, 07 October 1992
7 Oct 1992
LCJ

Criminal Practice
Practice Direction - arrangements for editing and producing tapes.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 53

 
Lloydell Richards v The Queen [1992] UKPC 28
19 Oct 1992
PC

Criminal Practice
(Jamaica)
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) Gazette, 11 November 1992
11 Nov 1992
CACD

Criminal Practice
Attempt rape offence may be have been complete before the attempt at physical penetration.
Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1(1)

 
Regina v Bow St Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte South Coast Shipping and Others Gazette, 18 November 1992; [1993] 96 Cr App R 405
18 Nov 1992
QBD
Lloyd LJ
Criminal Practice
A private prosecution was allowed after the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to prosecute in the case of the deaths in the sinking of the Bowbelle Marchioness. Lloyd LJ discussed what would amount to abuse of process: "Manipulation or misuse of the prosecution process
I do not doubt Mr Glogg wanted a full scale public inquiry instead of the limited investigation carried out in private by the Marine Accident Investigation Bureau under the new procedure introduced by section 33 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 (S.I 1989 No 1172).
Those regulations came into force only a fortnight before the casualty. No doubt the members of the so-called Marchioness Action Group who have lost relatives in the disaster also wanted a public inquiry. I can well understand their anxiety, frustration and sense of grievance when a public inquiry was not announced. I should add that Mr Glogg was not himself a member of the Marchioness Action Group but he is represented by the same firm of solicitors.
Does it then follow from Mr Glogg's desire for a public inquiry that he had some indirect or improper motive in launching the prosecution? I do not think it does. At the start, Mr Glogg's state of mind may well have been that he wanted both a public inquiry and a prosecution for manslaughter. The fact that a public inquiry has been ruled out does not mean that his motive in instituting the prosecution should now be regarded as improper. If there is evidence that a defendant has been guilty of an offence, then a desire to see him prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished, is not an improper motive, especially where the prosecutor is one of the bereaved. Even if Mr Glogg's motives were mixed, the court should be slow to halt a prosecution unless the conduct of the prosecution is truly oppressive."
Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 3(2)(a) 3(2)(c) 3(2)(d)
1 Citers



 
 Richards v The Queen; PC 25-Nov-1992 - Gazette, 25 November 1992
 
Regina v K (DT) Times, 08 December 1992
25 Nov 1992
CACD
Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ, Potts J, Judge J
Criminal Practice, Natural Justice
The Judge must himself examine documents for which immunity is claimed before making a decision on a public interest immunity claim. It is the court's job, and nobody else's to make such decisions, and to find the balance between the public interest and the right to a fair trial in any particular case.

 
AM v United Kingdom 20657/92; [1992] ECHR 84
2 Dec 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The applicant complained that at his trial in 1988 for the murder of two British soldiers in Befast, the judge had allowed the cameramen upon whose film evidence he had been convicted to be hidden from the view of the defendants. The court considered the admissibility of the claim. Held: The case wa inadmissible: "The Commission recalls the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that, in principle, all evidence must be adduced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, but this does not mean that a statement from a witness must always be made in court and in public if it is to be admitted in evidence . . The defendant must be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him. In the present case, the witnesses whose identity was not disclosed to the public or the accused, were present in court and could be seen by the judge and by the representatives of both prosecution and defence. The evidence itself concerned not the question of identification of the applicant (which evidence was given by police officers whose identity was not withheld), but merely the making of certain filmed and photographic evidence. It was accepted by the defence that the evidence did not implicate the applicant."
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction: Lord Chief Justice 1 October 1992 Gazette, 16 December 1992
16 Dec 1992
LCJ

Criminal Practice
Court must now have regard to actual sentence to be served.

 
Edwards v The United Kingdom 13071/87; Times, 21 January 1991; (1993) 15 EHRR 417; [1992] ECHR 77
16 Dec 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the defence. One of the police witnesses said that no fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, whereas in fact two fingerprints were found which later turned out to be those of the next door neighbour who was a regular visitor to the house. Held: There was a prosecution failure to disclose relevant information, but no PII issue had been raised. The omission was held to have been rectified by the appeal process. Article 6.1 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.
"it is a requirement of fairness under Article 1 . . that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused."
Whether a failure of disclosure has resulted in a breach of article 6(1) has to be considered in the light of the proceedings as a whole, including the decisions of appellate courts.
European Convention on Human Rights 1 6.1
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Shephard; HL 16-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 27 January 1993; [1993] 1 All ER 225; [1993] 2 WLR 102; [1993] AC 380
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.