(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board considered the admissibility of out of court admissions as against co-defendants. Three defendants faced allegations of a series of violent crimes. The appellant said the only evidence against him for an offence of buggery was the statement of his co-defendant. The defendants were charged with different offences.
Held: The admission should not have been used and the appeal succeeded. There was in any event no jurisdiction to order a whipping for the offence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
[2007] UKPC 51, Times 07-Aug-2007
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Spinks CACD 1982
Spinks was charged under section 4(1) of the 1967 Act, in that knowing or believing that a Mr Fairey had committed an arrestable offence, he acted with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution. To prove that Fairey had committed an . .
Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
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. . .
Cited – Kumar Ali v The State (Appeal 56 of 2004) and Leslie Tiwari v The State PC 2-Nov-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked to determine the date from which an unsuccessful appellant’s sentence should run. Pending an appeal or whilst on remand, a prisoner would be held in less demanding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.258434