Philip Joshua Rahming v The Queen: PC 20 May 2002

(Bahamas) The case was an appeal against a conviction for murder on the basis of the incorrect direction from the judge as to manslaughter and murder, and the failure to give a lies direction.
Held: The failure to bring the defendant before a court within 48 hours did not affect the weight of the evidence. The prosecution had not asked the jury to rely upon the fact of the defendant’s lies. The judge had failed to distinguish between acts intending causing unlawful bodily harm and those intending causing death. He left the jury with the impression that a reckless killing could suffice for murder. The conviction for murder was quashed and one for manslaughter substituted.

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[2002] UKPC 23, (Appeal No 33 0f 2001)
PC, PC, Philip Joshua Rahming ‘ target=’_n’>PC, Bailii, PC
Evidence Act 1996 (Bahamas) 20
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Burge and Pegg CACD 1996
The court considered the circumstances under which the defendant had lied, and Lucas direction was to be given: ‘As there seems to be at the moment a tendency in one appeal after another to assert that there has been no direction, or an inadequate . .
CitedRegina v Goodway CACD 11-Aug-1993
The judge is to give a ‘Lucas’ direction, if the fact of a defendant’s lie is to be relied upon by the prosecution to challenge the veracity of other evidence given by the defendant. . .
CitedRegina v Lucas (Ruth) CACD 1981
People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Crime, Evidence

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.171197