Guidance was given on the directions to be given to the jury where a co-accused speaks for prosecution as a witness and in sexual assault cases. The full corroboration warning is not now needed; the Judge may use his own discretion, and may give a lesser direction if he chooses. In this case there was no evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the complainant was unreliable.
Lord Taylor LCJ said: ‘(1) it was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion whether or not to give a warning to the jury in respect of the unsupported evidence of [a] complainant in a sexual case. The nature of the warning and whether or not to give it would depend upon the circumstances of the case, the issues raised and the content and quality of the witness’s evidence. (2) There would need to be an evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the witness was unreliable, which did not include mere suggestions by cross-examining counsel. (3) If the question arose whether a special warning should be given, it was desirable that the question be resolved by discussion with counsel in the jury’s absence before final speeches . . (5) Where some warning is required, it will be for the judge to decide the strength and terms of the warning; it does not have to be invested with the whole florid regime of the old corroboration rules. (6) The court will only interfere with the judge’s exercise of his discretion if it is unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.’ As to retrospectivity ‘The general rule against the retrospective operation of statutes does not apply to procedural provisions . . . Indeed the general presumption is that a statutory change in procedure applies to pending as well as future proceedings.’
Lord Taylor LCJ
Gazette 07-Jun-1995, Independent 06-Jun-1995, Times 17-May-1995, (1995) 2 Cr App R 469,  1 WLR 1348,  3 All ER 730
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 32
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Warner CACD 17-Feb-1997
The defendant appealed convictions for indecent assault, saying that convictions on some counts and acquittals on others were so inconsistent as to call the convictions into question, showing acceptance of the complainant’s evidence on some counts . .
Cited – Regina v Gellatly, JR CACD 22-Jul-1997
The defendant appealed against convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault against the daughters of his partner. The allegations were that serious sexual assaults had been repeated over several years. The defendant denied them . .
Cited – Regina v B CACD 15-May-1997
The Court upheld a conviction in respect of an Appellant who had been convicted of three offences on a six-count indictment. He was acquitted of the other three. In respect of each of the six counts the Prosecution relied upon the uncorroborated . .
Cited – Bradley, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The defendant complained that his criminal record had been placed before the jury under the Act, even though the proceedings had been begun before the commencement date.
Held: The provisions of the Act were procedural in nature and therefore . .
Cited – Regina v Doheny, Adams CACD 31-Jul-1996
The court set out the procedure for the introduction of DNA evidence in criminal trials. In particular the court explained the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy’ when using statistical evidence. The significance of the DNA evidence will depend critically upon . .
Cited – Clibery, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the Home Secretary, to refuse his application for compensation. He had first been convicted and imprisoned and then had his conviction quashed. The respondent did not think that the conviction was . .
Cited – Misick, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 1-May-2009
The former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands sought to challenge the constitutionality of the 2009 order which was to allow suspension of parts of the Constitution and imposing a direct administration, on a final report on alleged corruption. . .
Cited – Regina v Cairns; Regina v Zaldi, Regina v Chaudary CACD 22-Nov-2002
The defendants applied for the defence statements of co-defendants to be disclosed. A co-defendant was to give evidence for the Crown, and they sought to have it excluded as unreliable.
Held: The 1996 Act created a duty of secondary . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.87247