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.
Judges:
Lord Justice Laws Eady The Honourable Mr Justice Eady
Citations:
[2004] 2 Cr App R 335, [2004] EWHC 715 (Admin), [2004] 2 Cr App R 21, (2004) 168 JP 293, (2004) 168 JPN 438
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – D (A Minor), Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Green Youth Court HL 27-Jan-2005
The defendant challenged the obligatory requirement that evidence given by a person under 17 in sex or violent offence cases must normally be given by video link.
Held: The purpose of the section was to improve the quality of the evidence . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Diane, Regina v CACD 9-Jul-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.195036
