The appellant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of cocaine by importing a quantity of cocaine on a ship which docked at Greenock. The trial judge directed the jury that, in considering the case against the appellant, they could to have regard to a statement by one of his co-accused, Jensen, to Customs and Excise officers, admitting that cocaine found in his possession had been put on the ship in Colombia.
Held: This had been a misdirection: ‘In my opinion this clearly constituted a misdirection. What the appellant Jensen said to the [Customs and Excise] officers was plainly evidence against him, but it was not evidence against the other appellants. In his report the trial judge deals with this ground of appeal. It is not entirely clear whether he is maintaining that because of the earlier direction which he had given to the jury about statements by one co-accused, they ought to have realised that the answers which the appellant Jensen gave to the Customs and Excise officers were not evidence against the other accused, or whether the trial judge’s view was that these answers were evidence against the other appellants. In his report he states: ‘It is my understanding that a statement made by one accused outwith the presence of another is only inadmissible against the latter if it incriminates him.’ The passage would suggest to me that the trial judge’s view was that the answers made by the appellant Jensen were in this case admissible against his co-accused. The trial judge recognised that what Jensen said was relevant to the question of importation of cocaine, but he opined that importation by itself was not a criminal act for the purposes of charge (1). That may well be so but importation was a fact which required to be proved by the Crown if guilt under charge (1) was to be established. What the Customs and Excise Officers testified that the appellant Jensen had said to them was hearsay evidence, and so was not admissible against the co-accused as evidence of the facts alleged in the statement. In directing the jury that the evidence of the appellant Jensen’s answers was evidence upon which the jury could rely in the case of the other appellants, the trial judge, in my opinion, misdirected the jury.’
References: 1990 SCCR 645
Judges: Lord Justice Clerk Ross
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005 (, , [2005] UKHL 6, Times 07-Feb-05, [2005] 1 WLR 605)
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.222545