The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained as to the admission of some additional evidence from one of the co-defendants.
Held: The appeal failed. Although some of the judge’s analysis was incorrect: ‘We recognise that a court will not readily admit an out of court statement by one defendant as evidence against another. But in our view a critical feature of this case, as the judge recognised, is that the application was made by a co-defendant who sought to have the evidence admitted in support of his case. Staponka was saying, by implication, that the appellant was responsible for the attack, and this was potentially important evidence in support of his case. Notwithstanding the errors in the way the judge dealt with paragraphs (e) and (f), it is clear in our view that the judge did believe that the evidence was potentially reliable and after a very careful consideration of all relevant matters, he came to the conclusion that the evidence should be admitted. In our judgment that was a cogent and proper conclusion properly available to him. The case of McLean indicates that once evidence is in under section 114 it is in for all purposes.’
Elias LJ, William Davis J, Batty QC HHJ Rec of Carisle
[2015] EWCA Crim 22
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76A
England and Wales
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.542022