R, Regina v: CACD 4 Apr 2008

The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as training allowed. No notice had been given to apply to the court which had used this to allow the special measures direction.
Held: The appeal failed. The Commencement Order had been passed. The Crown Court is one court, not a series of courts, and there was no express arrangement to limit the power to particular sittings. The judge had the power to make a special measures direction, notwithstanding the fact no notification of availability had been given under section 18(2) which was simply an administrative provision designed to help the court, but it in no way affected the power of the Crown Court to make a special measures direction under section 27 in any proceedings at any time after the provision was commenced by the Commencement Order.
References: [2008] EWCA Crim 678, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep 10, [2008] 1 WLR 2044
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Thomas
Statutes: Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 18(2)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Bedwellty Justices Ex Parte Williams HL 18-Sep-1996 (Gazette 18-Sep-96, [1997] AC 225, [1996] 2 Cr App R 594, [1996] 3 All ER 737)
    A decision by magistrates to commit a case to the Crown Court in the absence of any admissible evidence is a reviewable decision. The committal was quashed.
    The ‘Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court has normally in judicial review . .
  • Cited – Regina (Britton) v Croydon Crown Court 2000 ((2000) 164 JP 729)
    The Crown Court is a single court. . .
  • Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008 (, [2008] UKHL 8, [2008] 1 WLR 338, [2008] 2 Cr App R 2, [2008] Crim LR 551, [2008] 2 All ER 665)
    An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
    Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
  • Cited – Regina on the Application of S v Waltham Forest Youth Court, The Crown Prosecution Service, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Mar-2004 ([2004] 2 Cr App R 335, , [2004] EWHC 715 (Admin), [2004] 2 Cr App R 21, (2004) 168 JP 293, (2004) 168 JPN 438)
    There was no inherent power to allow a defendant to give evidence by live link, on the ground that Parliament had sought since 1988 to provide exclusively for the circumstances in which live link might be used in a criminal trial. . .
  • Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn) HL 15-Dec-2000 (Gazette 15-Feb-01, , Times 15-Dec-00, , [2000] UKHL 63, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 2 AC 91)
    A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence . .
  • Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005 (, Times 11-Feb-05, , [2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 WLR 637, [2005] 1 All ER 945, [2005] EMLR 287)
    The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
  • Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
    The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Diane, Regina v CACD 9-Jul-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Crim 1494, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep 1)
    Whether the judge had been right to admit evidence given by telephone only from a witness in Belgium.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. Parliament authorised in sections 30 and 31 that witnesses who are present in the United Kingdom could be heard . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 11 November 2020; Ref: scu.266465