PC (Jamaica) The defendants appealed convictions for three capital murders, saying that an eye witness’ statement had not been disclosed at trial or admitted on appeal. This evidence descrinbed the assailants as wearing balaclavas, which cast doubt on the other eye witness identification.
Held: The evidence was that the statement was known to the defence, and that it did not contradict the prosecution case. Howebver the statement was of such a character that it should not have been rejected by the court of appeal without hearing the witness in person. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to hear that evidence.
Judges:
Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2002] UKPC 53
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Sales CACD 2000
The court gave guidance on the proper approach of an appellate court to an application to adduce fresh evidence is contained in the judgment of the English Court of Appeal: ‘Proffered fresh evidence in written form is likely to be in one of three . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Crime
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177794