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.
Evidence - From: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Morris v Beardmore; HL 1981 - [1981] AC 446; [1980] 2 All ER 753; [1980] RTR 321; (1980) 71 Cr App R 256; [1980] 3 WLR 283; (1980) 144 JP 331
John Pierce v Her Majesty's Advocate 1981 SCLR 783
1981
Lord Justice-General (Lord Emslie)
Criminal Practice, Evidence
A forensic scientist had been called as an expert witness at a criminal trial. He had made an unjustified assumption but had not disclosed the making of the assumption to the court. Held: The court concluded that the witness had been discredited, not only as a scientist, but also as a witness upon the accuracy, fairness and objectivity and of whose evidence reliance could be placed: "This was in our judgment, conduct on the part of an expert witness which demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the role of scientific witnesses in the Courts, and a lack of the essential qualities of accuracy and scientific objectivity which are normally to be taken for granted."
1 Citers
Great Atlantic Insurance v Home Insurance; CA 1981 - [1981] 2 All ER 485; [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 138; [1981] 1 WLR 529
Regina v Chauhan; CACD 1981 - [1981] 73 Crim App R 232
Regina v Beck [1982] CLY 563; [1982] 1 WLR 461; [1982] 1 All ER 807
1982
CACD
Ackner LJ
Criminal Practice, Evidence
The defendant complained that the judge had failed to direct the jury about the dangers of relying upon the evidence of witnesses who, though not co-defendants, had their own conflicting interests. They also said that corroborative evidence should only have been accepted to support directly some specific evidence of an accomplice. Held: A formal accomplice direction was not required. It was enough to warn the jurors of the dangers. Evidence whose nature was corroborative need not be directly related to evidence given by an accomplice. "While we in no way wish to detract from the obligation upon a judge to advise a jury to proceed with caution where there is material to suggest that a witness's evidence may be tainted by an improper motive, and the strength of the evidence must vary according to the facts of the case, we cannot accept that there is any obligation to give the accomplice warning with all that entails, when it is common ground that there is no basis for suggesting that the witness is a participant or in any way involved in the crime the subject matter of the trial."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Abadom; CACD 1982 - [1983] 1 All ER 364; [1983] 1 WLR 126; [1982] 76 Cr App R 48
Air Canada v Secretary of State for Trade; HL 1983 - [1983] 2 AC 394; [1983] 1 All ER 161; [1983] 2 WLR 494
Kirkup v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1165; [1983] 3 All ER 147
1983
CA
Litigation Practice, Evidence
Where interrogatories are administered they should be drafted with considerable rigour because if they are so widely drawn as to be vague they may be regarded as oppressive.
1 Citers
Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HL 10-Feb-1983 - [1983] 2 WLR 321; [1984] 1 AC 74; [1982] UKHL 5; [1983] UKHL 8; [1983] 1 All ER 765; [1982] Imm AR 139
Berger v Raymond Sun Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 625
1984
Warner J
Evidence
The court distinguished the test of the admissibility of evidence of similar facts from the criteria according to which the court should exercise its discretion to exclude such evidence. He said that the test of admissibility was the same in civil and in criminal cases.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Re Highgrade Traders [1984] BCLC 151
1984
CA
Oliver LJ
Litigation Practice, Evidence
Litigation privilege may be claimed in respect of documents brought into being at a time when litigation is reasonably in prospect.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Re Highgrade Traders Ltd (1984) BCLC 151
1984
CA
Oliver LJ
Legal Professions, Evidence
The court rejected a claim for legal advice privilege in relation to reports commissioned by an insurance company after a suspected arson. The documents were reports prepared by third parties rather than employees of the company. After considering a number of earlier authorities, held that litigation privilege might be claimed in respect of documents brought into being at a time when litigation was reasonably in prospect.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Castle v Cross [1984] 1 WLR 1372; [1985] 1 All ER 87
1984
Evidence
First-hand evidence, in this case, a print-out from a device, of what is displayed or recorded on a mechanical measuring device is real evidence admissible at common law.
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that [mechanical instruments] were in order at the material time".
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45
1984
Criminal Practice, Evidence
(South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert. Held: It is for the judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose there are two questions for the judge to decide: "The first is whether the subject matter of the opinion falls within the class of subjects upon which expert testimony is permissible. This . . may be divided into two parts: (a) whether the subject matter of the opinion is such that a person without instruction or experience in the area of knowledge or human experience would be able to form a sound judgment on the matter without the assistance of witnesses possessing special knowledge or experience in the area, and (b) whether the subject matter of the opinion forms part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience, a special acquaintance with which by the witness would render his opinion of assistance to the court. The second question is whether the witness has acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge of the subject to render his opinion of value in resolving the issues before the court.
An investigation of the methods used by the witness in arriving at his opinion may be pertinent, in certain circumstances, to the answers to both the above questions . . Where the witness possesses the relevant formal qualifications to express an opinion on the subject, an investigation on the voir dire of his methods will rarely be permissible on the issue of his qualifications. There may be greater scope for such examination where the alleged qualifications depended upon experience or informal studies... Generally speaking, once the qualifications are established, the methodology will be relevant to the weight of the evidence and not to the competence of the witness to express an opinion..."
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Momin Ali [1984] 1 WLR 663; [1984] Imm AR 23; [1984] 1 All ER 1009
1984
CA
Sir John Donaldson MR
Evidence
The court discussed the applicability of Ladd -v Marshall principles as to the admission of new evidence in public law proceedings. Sir John Donaldson MR said: 'the decision in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 has as such no place in that context,' but "the principles which underlie issue estoppel and the decision in Ladd v Marshall, namely that there must be finality in litigation, are applicable subject always to the discretion of the Court to depart from them if the wider interests of justice so require."
and "This fresh evidence was clearly available and should have been placed before Webster J. It is not the function of this court, as an appellate court, to retry an originating application on different and better evidence. We are concerned to decide whether the trial judge's decision was right on the materials available to him, unless the new evidence could not have been made available to him by the exercise of reasonable diligence or there is some other exceptional circumstance which justifies its admission and consideration by this court. That is not this case."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Bagshaw, Holmes and Starkey [1984] 1 All ER 971; [1984] 1 WLR 477
1984
CA
Evidence
The defendants were nurses at a mental hospital, charged with assaulting their patients. They complained that the judge had not given the full direction as to the dangers of relying upon the uncorroborated evidence of of unreliable witnesses, they being detained mental patients. Held: In this case full warnings of the sort requested were essential. The evidence of the witnesses was untreliable, and in the absence of an appropriate warning, the convictions were overturned.
1 Cites
1 Citers
