Statements in an out of court witness statement were only put to the witness in cross-examination and the court was now asked whether the prosecution was entitled to re-examine on parts of the document not put to the witness in cross-examination.
Held: ‘ In our judgment the Recorder did err in concluding that the situation fell within section 120(3). It does not appear that this witness statement had been used by the witness to refresh her memory while giving evidence. On the contrary, it was put to her on the basis that there was an inconsistency between her oral evidence and the witness statement, which did not contain matters she had stated in her oral evidence. As an inconsistent statement the matter would have been properly dealt with under section 119 of the 2003 Act . . Even if it could be said that the document had been used by the witness to refresh her memory while giving evidence, it still does not seem to us that the matter falls within section 120(3) so as to render the witness statement as a whole admissible in evidence. Section 120(3) does not provide for the circumstances in which a documentary statement may be received in evidence, but provides for the evidential status of a document where it is received in evidence. Whether it should be received in evidence in the first place is subject to the former common law rules.’
Judges:
Richards LJ, Collins, Jack JJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Crim 2330
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 120(4)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Chinn, Regina v CACD 15-Mar-2012
The defendant appealed against his conviction for a serious assault. He argued that the prosecution should not have been allowed to introduce parts of a witness’ statement where the witness could not remember the underlying events directly.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.406583
