Regina v Foxford: CANI 1974

The Crown in opening its case said that it would call two witnesses, but did not do so and only tendered them for cross-examination. That cross-examination produced evidence favourable to the defence, and the witnesses were then re- examined by the Crown, querying their evidence. The court was asked as to the production of previous statements made by Crown witnesses.
Held: That should not have been allowed. If the facts relating to the making of the statements were unusual that would justify the trial judge in directing the prosecution to furnish the statements to the defence although it remained a matter of discretion for him and the Court of Appeal would rarely interfere. Otherwise the trial judge had to rely on the Crown’s discretion and propriety. The defence cannot inspect the statement of a prosecution witness but the Crown ought to offer the statement to the defence if it is materially at variance with the evidence given in Court.
The re-examination had been irregular on four grounds:
(I) because re-examination was only to clear up points raised in cross- examination, and no new material could be introduced;
(ii) because leading questions must not be asked;
(iii) because cross-examination is not permissible; and
(iv) because unless the witness has proved hostile, and the judge has granted leave, a party may not attack his own witness’ version of what had happened.
Lowry LCJ spoke also as to the difficulties arising from a procedure in which the judge of law was also the tribunal of fact.

Judges:

Lowry LCJ

Citations:

[1974] NI 181

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Livingstone CANI 25-Jun-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that police officers had fabricated a confession, and had severely mistreated another detainee to concoct further evidence.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Had the material . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.535595