The appellant was one of two convicted of murder. He appealed that conviction. Another youth had first denied any knowledge but then implicated the defendant after being arrested for other offences. The prosecution had been allowed to treat that witness as hostile, with no order to that effect having been made, and that witness had been allowed to refresh his memory by having his written evidence to be put to him. The witness claimed to be dyslexic.
Held: A decision to treat a witness as hostile, and as to whether a witness can refresh his memory, are matters for the discretion of the trial judge, and as such challenges are difficult to sustain. The judge had in fact refused to allow the witness to be treated as hostile, and the prosecutor had not been allowed to cross examine his own witness. The judge had given a firm and clear direction, and the decisions were well within his discretion. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Henry Mr Justice Douglas Brown And Mr Justice Astill
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Crim 1904
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Honeyghon, Sayles CACD 31-Jul-1998
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. There had been what was described as a wall of silence preventing witnesses coming forward. . .
Cited – Regina v South Ribble Magistrates ex parte Cochrane CACD 7-Jun-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.158304