The defendant challenged admission of written statements saying that he would only be able to controvert the written statements if he gave evidence, and it was submitted that that would infringe his right to silence.
Held: There was no reason to think that Article 6 rights would be infringed if sections 23 and 26 were utilised by courts. After referring to authorities from Europe: ‘there is nothing there to concern us and we remain confident that the conduct of the application before Buxton J and the procedures by which he would conduct the trial accord fully with our treaty obligations.’
The judge considered the meaning of section 71(4) of the unamended 1988 Act. He held that section 71(4) requires ‘what can fairly be described as an obtaining by the defendant himself’ and that ‘the obtaining of property under section 71(4) must be by the defendant personally’.
Lord Justice Ward, Buxton J
 2 CR App R 266
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Cole CACD 1990
Cited – Sellick and Sellick, Regina v CACD 14-Mar-2005
The defendants appealed convictions for murder saying that the court had had read to it the statements of four witnesses who refused to attend for fear, having been intimidated. Other witnesses had been unco-operative and had been treated by the . .
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Human Rights
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224306