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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 24 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Affymetrix Inc; Affymetrix UK Ltd and Beckman Coulter Inc (2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1227
30 Jan 2001
CA
Evidence, Litigation Practice
[ Bailii ]
Her Majesty's Advocate and Another v Mcintosh Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 08 February 2001; [2001] 3 WLR 107; DRA No 12 of 2000; [2003] 1 AC 1078; [2001] UKPCD 1; [2001] 2 All ER 638; 2001 SC (PC) 89; [2001] 2 Cr App R 27; 2001 GWD 6-206; [2001] HRLR 20; 2001 SLT 304; 2001 SCCR 191; [2001] UKHRR 463
5 Feb 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Evidence, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with his article 6 rights. The first question was whether he remained a person "charged with a criminal offence". The Court felt not. The application was not initiated by the complainant, could only be made after a conviction, and was part of the sentencing procedure,. The defendant was accused of no additional criminal activity, the statement lodged in support of an application for confiscation order was an accounting statement and not an accusation, the sum ordered did not be the profit from drug trafficking or any other offence, and the time order to be served in the case of default related to the failure, not to any underlying offence, any risk that matters referred to in the statement might be subject to a later charge, left a possibility of double jeopardy, and the proceedings and did not conclude in the verdict. The statutory scheme laid down by a democratically elected parliament should not be readily rejected. The sources of the assets was known to the defendant and a defendant explain them would not be faced with a court order.
Criminal confiscation proceedings do not amount to the bringing of a fresh criminal charge and thus Art. 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights is not directly engaged. However, a court is required to act with "scrupulous fairness" in making its assessment for the purposes of a confiscation order. Further, the proceedings are designed to be fully adversarial, affording the accused every opportunity to challenge evidence against him and to call witnesses.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 3(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
Barings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others etc; ChD 9-Feb-2001 - Times, 07 March 2001; Gazette, 29 March 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 17
Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham; Admn 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 582
Regina v Fell; CACD 22-Mar-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 696
Regina v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo; CACD 6-Apr-2001 - [2001] EWCA Crim 1025/6
Masquerade Music Ltd and Others v Bruce Springsteen [2001] EWCA Civ 5122; [2001] EWCA Civ 513
10 Apr 2001
CA
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Laws And Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Intellectual Property, Contract, Evidence
The respondent was a composer who sought to restrict the import of CDs containing his music into the UK. The appellants responded putting him to strict proof of his title. The title included assignments from a partnership to limited companies, but the original documents were no longer available. He sought to have admitted in evidence secondary evidence. The appellants submitted that before that secondary evidence could be admitted, the plaintiff should have shown that he had taken executed a diligent search for the document. Held: At its highest, the best evidence rule was not an absolute rule. This is so particularly where the document was not in the possession of the party. It is now for the court to look at all the circumstances, and to admit secondary evidence accordingly.
Copyright Act 1956 36(3)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Re X (Non-Accidental Injury: Expert Evidence) [2001] EWHC Fam 1; [2001] 2 FLR 90
11 Apr 2001
FD
Singer J
Evidence, Children
A child had been injured, and the local authority sought a care order. A expert witness for the parents had argued that the child may have suffered a condition of Temporary Brittle Bone Disease (TBBD). Held: Though the parents had been convicted before a criminal court, in fact there had been no finding of fact relevant to the current application. The expert evidence was quite unsatisfactory. TBBD is not recognised as a condition, and the expert's evidence was so tendentious as to call into question the validity of his claim to be an expert witness. The burden of proof of abuse lay upon the local authority but on the balance of probability. Though the injury could be safely ascribed to neither parent the threshold criteria had been reached and directions were given for further hearings.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and others v Troup Bywaters and Anders (a Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 793
25 May 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley And Lord Justice Dyson
Evidence, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
Correctly construing apparently sceptical expert witness as to "reasonable body of professional opinion" in a fact rich case.
[ Bailii ]
Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trust v David Goldberg QC (No 3) Times, 14 August 2001; Gazette, 23 August 2001; [2001] EWHC Ch 396; [2001] 1 WLR 2337
6 Jul 2001
ChD
Evans-Lombe J
Evidence, Litigation Practice
Where parties settled a matter after the draft of the judgment had been delivered to them, and the terms of the settlement required the non-publication of the judgment, the judge nevertheless retained the power to publish that judgment. Held: The judge limited the judgment to that and the following issue. The defendant's expert witness was a friend of the defendant, working from the same barrister's set. He admitted his friendship for the defendant was closer than would be the case normally. The court disallowed admission of his evidence, since the risk of his evidence being coloured by this relationship was incompatible with the special duties owed to the court and all parties. However objective his evidence might in fact be, it was incompatible with the need for justice to be seen to be done.
Civil Evidence Act 1972 3
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Cleveland Police v Watson [2001] EWCA Civ 1144
10 Jul 2001
CA
Torts - Other, Police, Evidence
The Chief Constable renewed his application for leave to appeal against a judgment for damages for assault and malicious prosecution, saying that the judge had incorrectly not allowed mention of some of the claimant's convictions. Held: Some of the convictions were spent and had been correctly excluded.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 7(3)
[ Bailii ]
Bennett and Augustus John v The Queen; PC 17-Jul-2001 - [2001] UKPC 37; Appeal No 74 of 2000
Regina v Sonni Lee Reid and Others Unreported, 31 July 2001
31 Jul 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell, Mr Justice Stanley Burton
Evidence
The six defendants had been convicted of murder. They had been involved in a mugging where both victims had been assaulted, and thrown from a bridge into the river. Only one survived. They applied a second time for leave to appeal against conviction. A medical report on one defendant had been disclosed in error, but was then admitted, but no prejudice was found. The practice of the prosecution of routinely obtaining psychiatric reports, which were not privileged, in murder cases is to be deprecated. Another defendant alleged she had been present only as a passive witness, but it was held that the extent of her involvement had been left properly with the jury. Leave was refused.
1 Cites
Berthill Fox v Regina (1) [2001] UKPC 40
2 Oct 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Hoffmann
Evidence, Commonwealth
(St Christopher and Nevis) On a trial for murder, the defendant had made an unsworn statement from the dock. The direction from the judge as to its value was challenged on appeal. Though there was some confusion, on balance it was acceptable. As to provocation, the common law still applied in St Kitts, and the board was asked to develop the common law so as to bring it into line with the English statutory equivalent. Held: The board has no such power. The judge had further been correct in directing the jury as to the issue of self defence. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Regina v Dearman, Southgate; CACD 8-Oct-2001 - Unrepported, 8 October 2001
Regina v Nethercott Times, 12 December 2001
2 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Davis
Evidence
Where defendant sought to rely upon a defence of duress, evidence of subsequent acts of violence may be admissible in support of that contention provided a sufficient connection could be made. Here, the defendant wanted to adduce evidence that those under whose direction he claimed to have acted had stabbed him causing serious injury some twelve weeks later. That evidence was relevant, and should have been admitted.
Regina v Gough (Stephen) Times, 19 November 2001
8 Nov 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Poole and Mr Justice David Steel
Evidence, Criminal Practice
Where a defendant absconded and failed to give evidence, it was not right for the judge to direct the jury that his failure to give evidence because of his absconding allowed the drawing of adverse inferences. Before such an inference could be drawn, the defendant had to have the consequences of his failure to give evidence explained to him, and that would not have been done in the case of an absconder. That warning was mandatory.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35(2)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Andrew Earle Anthony Brown, Jose Teixeira Times, 03 December 2001; [2002] RTR 395; CO/3794/2001; CO/3710/2001
16 Nov 2001
QBD
Lord Justice Pill, Mr Justice Cresswell
Road Traffic, Evidence
Where a defendant to a charge of driving with excess alcohol, sought to test the accuracy of the Intoximeter, the Magistrates should consider whether the evidence was as to the particular Intoximeter used, and was of sufficient quality to displace the presumption in law that the Intoximeter system in general works. The evidence in such cases did not go to the ability of the equipment to measure the levels of alcohol in the deep lungs. Evidence that the machines might misread alcohol held in the mouth was not relevant since each defendant admitted that no such alcohol was present. Evidence should not be put before the Court as to whether the ECIR instrument should not have received the approval of the Secretary of State and/or that approval should have been revoked and/or that it had been modified
Road Traffic Act 1988 5 15(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Clarke (executor of the will of Francis Bacon, deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another Times, 04 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1731
20 Nov 2001
ChD
Patten J
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice, Evidence
A party will not be allowed to file pleadings which required him to make contradictory statements of truth in a unified claim. The alternative may be for the proceedings to go ahead as separate, non-unified claims. When considering whether there was evidence to support an amendment, the court should apply the same test as for an application for summary judgment or to strike out. Hearsay evidence now being generally admissible, the requirement to state the source of any hearsay was procedural, and went as to weight, and did not the attribution to be based upon non-hearsay evidence.
Civil Procedure Rules 38 - Civil Evidence Act 1995
1 Citers
Marvin Murphy v The Queen [2002] UKPC 3; (Appeal No 34 of 2001); (Appeal No 34 of 2001)
22 Nov 2001
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Mustill Lord Scott of Foscote Sir Andrew Leggatt, Sir Philip Otton
Commonwealth, Crime, Evidence
(The Bahamas) The appellant had been convicted of burglary and robbery. The conviction depended upon identification by one witness who had given several differing descriptions. The trial was long delayed, and the appellant who was not represented was prevented from asking the witness about previous inconsistent descriptions, and nor was he shown earlier statements showing such differences. Held: In the circumstances the failure to disclose the earlier identification was a material irregularity. The police had also failed to disclose a first unsuccessful identification parade. A second had presumably been held because of some difference in description. Again that was a material irregularity. The directions as to the weakness of the identification evidence were also defective. Appeal succeeded.
1 Cites
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Marvin Murphy v. The Q' target-'_ext'>PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Rosenthal v Regina [2001] EWCA Crim 2717
4 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hughes, And, Mr Justice Keith
Evidence
The defendants were charged with fraudulent trading. Two defendants sought to exclude the statement of another which had been obtained under compulsion. There was a conflict of interest between the defendants. A question arose as to the power of co-defendants to cross examine co-accused on such statements. The amendment to the Act created after Saunders applied, and evidence of its contents was not admissible unless he raised an issue which it covered. However although a question of law arose, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the judge's order.
Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(8AA) - Companies Act 1985 458 389A(2)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Pearce Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2834; [2002] 1 Cr App R 39; [2002] 1 WLR 1553
11 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Hughes, And, Mr Justice Penry-Davey
Criminal Practice, Evidence, Human Rights
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the court had not allowed his alcoholism as a characteristic for the purposes of testing the defence of provocation, and that the evidence of his long standing partner should be treated as equivalent to that of a wife, making her evidence admissible but not compellable. Held: As to the admission of evidence, that this was within the area of discretion allowed to convention states, and was a proper balance between the need for respect for family life, and the wider needs of the community. As to the alcohol abuse, there was no evidence of it having reached such a stage as to affect his control over how much he drank. The conviction stood.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 80(1) - Homicide Act 1957 3
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Dervish and Another Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2789
12 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kay, Sir Ian Kennedy and Judge David Clark QC
Evidence
The defendant had stayed silence at interview, and later at charge. During the trial, the judge ruled that the failure to answer questions at interview was inadmissible, but left to the jury the possibility of drawing adverse inferences from the silence at charge. He appealed. Held: So long as the fairness of the trial was upheld, the judge was right in allowing a distinction between the two stages. The defendant had merely been put back at the position he would have been in but for the police failings, and had had full opportunity to explain at the trial why he had remained silent.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34(1)(a)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Clive Louden Carass Times, 21 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Crim 2845; [2002] 1 WLR 1214; [2002] 2 Cr App R 4
19 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Waller, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Crime, Insolvency, Evidence
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section did not transfer the burden from the prosecution. Held: To justify a transfer of the burden of proof, it had to be shown that this was required, and a persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden was not justified. There was no sufficient threat to society which required a higher burden. The words should be read to require the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence.
Insolvency Act 1986 206 (1)(a)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]