Regina v Chal: CACD 5 Oct 2007

The defendant appealed the decision of the court in a hearing under the 1964 Act that he had been involved in the offence at issue. He said the court had been wrong to admit hearsay evidence.
Held: The prosecution had had to present evidence under section 116(2)(d) of the 2003 Act, by way of a statement from a witness who had later absented himself. Such proceedings were ‘criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply.’ It was essential that the formal rules of evidence should apply. Scetion 4A proceedings should follow the fact-finding process of a full criminal trial as closely as possible. The evidence was admissible.
Toulson LJ, Gibbs J, Andrew Smith J
Times 26-Oct-2007
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4A, Criminal Justice At 2003 116(2)(d) 134(1)
England and Wales
CitedRegina v H (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant had been found unfit to stand trial, at a later hearing under the section, the jury had found that he had committed the act complained of. He was discharged but ordered to be placed on the sex offenders register. He appealed on the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.261363