The defendant appealed against his conviction for harassment. He was said to have used an imitation firearm to put a person in fear of violence. The prosecution had used texts received to the defendant’s mobile phone as ‘bad character’ evidence. The judge had ruled that they were not statements and therefore not hearsay and were admissable.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘Whenever some evidence, which is not in the form of oral evidence in the proceedings, is now sought to be admitted in a criminal trial, there are three preliminary questions that have to be asked. First and foremost, is the proposed evidence relevant? Secondly, if so, is it a ‘statement’ within the meaning of section 115(2) of the CJA? Thirdly, if so, what is the purpose for which this ‘statement’ is to be adduced in evidence? Is it in order to prove a ‘matter stated’ (as defined by section 115(3)), or is it in order to prove the fact that the statement was made at all or is it to prove something else?’
Section 10 in saying that a court ‘must not’ allow evidence in in breach of the code was in stronger terms than was section 78 of the 1984 Act. The prosecution had used the texts to suggest that the defendant was a drug dealer. There was no other evidence to support that attack, and the result was so prejudicial as to make the conviction unsafe.
Judges:
Aikens LJ, Slade J Wadsworth QC J
Citations:
[2010] Crim LR 942, [2010] EWCA Crim 1403, [2010] Crim LR 942
Links:
Statutes:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Criminal Justice Act 2003 11491) 115 118(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Leonard CACD 28-Apr-2009
The defendant appealed against his convictions for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply. He complained at the use of of text messages found on his phone against him, saying they were hearsay.
Held: The texts contained . .
Cited – Regina v Kearley HL 3-Jun-1992
Telephone calls which were made to the defendant’s phone asking for drugs, but made after the arrest of the defendant for supplying drugs were inadmissible as hearsay. They were adduced to prove, by implication, the fact that he, as an occupier of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Twist and Others CACD 12-May-2011
The court considered the application of the 2003 Act to communications made to, or by, the defendant, and in particular text messages sent by mobile telephone.
Held: The four appeals against conviction were dismissed. Singh established that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417793