Regina v Berry: 1963

The defendant appealed a conviction for the violent stabbing of his ex-girlfriend.
Held: Evidence of past incidents should not be regarded as relevant to prove the state of mind with which a particular act (in that case was done.

Citations:

(1963) 83 Cr App R 7

Citing:

CriticisedRex v Ball HL 1911
Evidence of sexual acts or advances other than those which are the subject of the charge is frequently adduced to show the true nature of the relationship between the parties, a practice which may be regarded as an acceptable and inevitable form of . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Beedles CACD 31-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. The issue was whether a note written by the complainant to her teacher was admissible as evidence of recent complaint to corroborate her statement. Similar allegations had been made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.225389

Regina v Kansal: CACD 24 Jun 1992

K had been convicted of two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was also convicted of two counts under the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that being a bankrupt (a) he removed property which he was required to deliver up to the Official Receiver or his trustee, contrary to section 354(2); and (b) he failed without reasonable excuse to account for the loss of a substantial part of his property or to give a satisfactory explanation of the manner of the loss, contrary to section 354(3). Large sums were involved-he obtained from the Halifax Building Society pounds 150,000 and pounds 116,250 on a false representation as to his income and that he was not bankrupt and that he did not have any judgment or proceedings for debt outstanding. Prior to these advances he was adjudged bankrupt. His wife later collected from his solicitor pounds 104,000 in cash, part of the monies advanced by the Building Society, and took it in a bin liner to India.. 2. At his trial in 1992 the prosecution, using section 433 of the 1986 Act brought evidence of answers given by him under compulsion in his bankruptcy proceedings and the trial judge ruled that these answers were not rendered inadmissible by virtue of section 31 of the Theft Act 1968 but were admissible under section 433.
Held: His appeal failed. There was no bar on a prosecution based upon evidence in the form of admissions which had been provided involuntarily under the Insolvency Act in public hearings in later Theft Act cases. The written record could be used in any later proceedings.
The Insolvency Act 1986 and its Rules not only permitted the examination of the bankrupt to take place but rendered any statement made in the course of that examination admissible in any trial. In those circumstances, with specific legislation directed to this issue, the protection provided under section 31 of the Theft Act 1968 was inapplicable:
‘The privilege from self-incrimination is abrogated in bankruptcy proceedings not by the opening words of section 31 of the Theft Act 1968, but by rule 6.175 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 made pursuant to section 412 of the act of 1986:
‘(1) The bankrupt shall at the hearing be examined on oath; and he shall answer all questions as the court may put, or allow to be put, to him . . (5) The written record may, in any proceedings (whether under the Act or otherwise) be used as evidence against the bankrupt of any statement made by him in the course of his public examination.’
Thereafter section 433 of the Act of 1986 renders the evidence admissible.’

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jun-1992, Gazette 15-Jul-1992, [1992] 3 All ER 844, [1993] QB 244

Statutes:

Theft Act 1968 31, Insolvency Act 1986 433, Insolvency Rules 1986 6.175

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
See AlsoRegina v Kansal, on a Reference From the Criminal Cases Review Commission (2) CACD 24-May-2001
Once a case had been referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court had to make a declaration, even if the case was very old. The effect of the 1998 Act on statute law was not retrospective, but where it affected . .
See AlsoRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Criminal Evidence, Insolvency, Crime

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87029

Regina v Cairns: CACD 8 Mar 2000

It might still be proper for the Court of Appeal to admit evidence on an appeal which had not been made available on the trial, even though there appeared no sufficient reason why it had not been presented. Where the evidence was expert evidence which would have been admissible, was capable of belief, and might have based grounds for an appeal, and if the interests of justice and expediency so required, it could be admitted by the appellate court.

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Crim 21

Links:

Bailii

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85163

Director of Public Prosecutions v Spurrier: QBD 21 Jul 1999

It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was in working order. A court could reach such a conclusion without such evidence, but should be careful to examine all relevant aspects of the evidence.
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a charge under section 5. The magistrates heard that the reading was exceptionally high, but that the police had not noticed any effect on her demeanour and it had been twelve hours since she had consumed any alcohol.
Held: The case bumped up against the limits for magistrates to act without expert evidence, but the appeal failed. Their decision was not perverse. It was not absolutely necessary for a defendant who asserted that a Lion Intoximeter was faulty because of a disparity between the reading and what had been drunk, to bring expert evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the Intoximeter was in working order. A court could reach such a conclusion without such evidence, but should be careful to examine all relevant aspects of the evidence.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Oct-1999, Times 12-Aug-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 721

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 5(1)

Citing:

CitedCracknell v Willis HL 1988
The evidence which is admissible on a challenge to the reliability of an intoximeter device is not limited to direct evidence of the unreliability of the breath testing device, but can be based on evidence such as the level of consumption, and the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hill 1991
dpp_hill1991
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of a summons alleging that the driver had driven with excess alcohol. The magistrates had concluded that the intoximeter must have been faulty.
Held: The conclusion that the device was unreliable was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Road Traffic

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80049

D v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 7 Aug 1998

A failure to provide an identification parade need not be fatal to prosecution where there had been sufficient informal identification of the defendant by reference to clothing and approximate age.

Citations:

Times 07-Aug-1998

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice Code D para 2.3

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79762

Regina v Marylebone Magistrates Court ex parte Andrew Clingham: Admn 20 Feb 2001

The council received a report by a housing trust about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on an estate within the Borough, and after investigating applied for an anti-social behaviour order. Some witness statements contained first hand evidence, but the application was primarily based on hearsay evidence contained in records of complaints received by the trust and in police crime reports with from allegations of verbal abuse and serious criminal activities including assault, burglary, criminal damage and drug dealing dating from April 1998 to December 2000. Hearsay evidence was served under the 1999 rules. The defendant said the proceedings were criminal.
Held: Hearsay evidence is admissible on an application for an anti-social behaviour order. There is nothing in the jurisdiction of Human Rights to make such evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings, and its admission would not automatically make a criminal trial unfair. The weight to be attached to such evidence must vary according to the circumstances, and the magistrates could sensibly look at the Civil Evidence Act considerations. Such evidence alone might be insufficient for an order, but it should have some weight in most proceedings.
The council sought an anti-social behaviour order against the applicant. He challenged the admission against him of hearsay evidence.

Judges:

Schiemann LJ, Poole J

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 582

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 681, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, Civil Evidence Act 1995 1 9(2), Human Rights Act 1998 3

Citing:

Appealed toClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromClingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Magistrates, Evidence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79228

Chan Wai-Keung v The Queen: PC 10 Jan 1994

(Hong Kong) Evidence from a witness who was awaiting sentence in an unrelated matter was admissible since the jury had been warned of the dangers of such evidence. Lord Mustill said: ‘Once the courts have taken the large step, as they undoubtedly have, of recognising that circumstances may justify the calling of a witness who stands to gain by giving false evidence, it becomes impossible to say that what happened in the present case was necessarily contrary to the proper conduct of the murder trial. What was required was that the potential fallibility of [the witness] should be put squarely before the jury, and this is what was done.’
Evidence from a convict looking for a reduced sentence was admissible with an appropriate warning.

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-1994, Independent 10-Jan-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 194, [1994] UKPC 47

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedGibson, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant renewed has application for leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his daughter-in-law. The principle evidence against him was that of an accomplice. She had received letters to say that no further action would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78971

Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000: CACD 27 Jun 2001

The test of whether the behaviour of undercover police officers in instigating offending by the defendant crossed the line, so as to justify exclusion of their evidence, remains that the court must look at the extent of freedom of choice left to the defendant, and the propriety or otherwise of the officer’s actions. Did the officer, whether by active or passive means, do more than to afford to the defendant the opportunity to offend? Here the judge had also been wrong to exclude evidence of the defendant’s past behaviour where it’s nature was of direct relevance to the offence in question.

Citations:

Times 27-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1214, [2001] EWCA Crim 1214

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction on the Citation of Authorities LCJ 9-Apr-2001
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78020

Regina v Fitzgerald: CACD 2006

The admission of evidence on appeal of a previous conviction may amount to a new basis for conviction, i.e. the propensity of the Appellant to commit offences of this type: ‘While this court can receive fresh evidence from the Crown, not only in rebuttal of the appellant’s fresh evidence but also to demonstrate the safety of the conviction generally (see Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141; [2002] 3 All ER 534), it is not open to the Crown to seek to put in fresh evidence so as to enable it to advance an entirely new basis for a conviction which was never put before the jury. That would require this court to act as if it were the jury and would run counter to the House of Lords’ decision in Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66; [2002] 1 WLR 72, where it was said by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the Court of Appeal ‘is not and should never become the primary decision-maker. ‘

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Crim 1655

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedS and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2012
Four defendants appealed against convictions for child sex abuse. The convictions had taken place at a time when current guidance to examining physicians did not apply. In each case the defendants consented to new evidence from the prosecution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.568159

Scott v Baker: 1968

The 1967 Act introduced the offence of driving with excess alcohol. The power to require a suspect to provide a laboratory blood or urine sample, by which blood alcohol could be tested, was made dependent upon a complex step-by-step procedure. The first step in that procedure was the taking of a preliminary (usually roadside) ‘breath test’. By section 7, a ‘breath test’ was defined as one carried out using a device approved by the Secretary of State.
Held: Such approval was essential to the statutory steps leading to a validly required laboratory sample, and that approval must be proved. The maxim ‘omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’ cannot be relied upon to prove the existence of facts central to an offence.

Citations:

[1969] 1 QB 659, [1968] 2 All ER 993, [1968] 3 WLR 796

Statutes:

Road Safety Act 1967 7

Cited by:

DistinguishedPublic Prosecution Service v McKee SC 22-May-2013
Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints
The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.519001

Rex v Steptoe: 29 Oct 1830

The defendant was found with the carcass of a stolen ram in his bed. When tasked, he said that his brother had brought it.
Held: Park J summing up said that even thought the exculpatory statement had been led by the prosecutor that was not enough to amount to exculpation: ‘You are to take what he says all together. You are not bound to take the exculpatory part as true, merely because it is given in evidence; but you will say, looking at the whole case, whether you think the prisoner’s statement consistent with the other evidence, and whether you believe that it is really true.’ Verdict: Not Guilty

Citations:

[1830] EngR 801, (1830) 4 Car and P 397, (1830) 172 ER 756 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.321681

Regina v Hanton: CACD 2005

The court set out the test for whether a video recording of an interview was admissible: ‘Could a reasonable jury properly directed be sure that the witness has given a credible and accurate account on the video tape, notwithstanding any breaches? If ‘Yes’, it was a matter for the jury. If ‘No’ the interview would be inadmissible.’

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Crim 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v K (Evidence: Child video interview) CACD 10-Mar-2006
The defendant appealed admission into evidence against him of a video recording of if the child complainant.
Held: The admissibility of such a recording as evidence of indecent assault rested primarily on whether a jury could be sure that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240399

Regina v Weekes: 1988

Citations:

[1988] Crim LR 244

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Ali CACD 14-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed conviction and sentence for sexual assaults on young girls. He complained that the prosecution had been allowed to bring in evidence of previous consistent statements.
Held: The evidence of the mother had been admitted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187963

Regina v Hill: CACD 1993

The court was asked whether the prosecution had established that the substance involved in the case was the drug mentioned in the charge.
Held: Waterhouse J stated: ‘ . . the prosecution must establish the identity of the drug that is the subject of the charge with sufficient certainty to achieve the standard of proof required in a criminal case.’

Judges:

Waterhouse J

Citations:

(1993) 96 Cr App R 456

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCastle v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Mar-1998
Appeal by case stated from conviction of possession of firearms (air rifles) within five years of release from prison. The court was asked as to whether they were ‘lethal’
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ the Justices were entitled to reach the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.608657

Regina v Berry: CACD 1987

The court doubted the use of past incidents for the purpose of proving the state of mind, ie the intent, of a defendant charged with murder

Citations:

(1987) 84 Cr App R 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedRegina v Sidhu CACD 22-Feb-1993
The defendant was accused of explosives offences relating to his promotion of the cause of Sikhism through membership of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which promoted an independent Sikh state. The jury considered a video recording of the appellant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.598718

Regina v Radak; Regina v Adjei; Regina v Butler-Rees; Regina v Meghjee: CACD 7 Oct 1998

The court has a discretion to refuse to accept written evidence from a witness abroad who had refused to come here for fear of reprisals, and particularly so where the prosecution had failed to take advantage of procedures which would have allowed the defence to cross examine the witness.

Citations:

Times 07-Oct-1998

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 6(3)(d); Criminal Justice Act 1988 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87587

Chan Kau v The Queen: PC 1955

In a criminal trial for assault, once the evidence is shown to have raised a possible defense of self-defense, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to apply unlawful force to the victim: ‘Even under the common law if, but only if, the evidence supports the possible existence of one of the ‘excusatory defences then the Crown must negative such defence’

Judges:

Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1955] AC 206, [1955] 1 All ER 266, [1955] 2 WLR 192

Cited by:

CitedAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244747

Regina v Raviraj: CACD 1986

The court described the circumstances where a defendant’s failure to provide an account of circumstances might lead to an inference being drawn against him: ‘where suspicious circumstances appear to demand an explanation, and no explanation . . . is given, the lack of explanation may warrant an inference of guilty knowledge in the defendant.’

Judges:

Stocker LJ

Citations:

(1986) 85 Cr App 93

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Gilbert CACD 1977
The defendant on a charge of murder had claimed at trial that he had acted in self-defence. He had not said anything of this sort in his police statement under caution. The trial judge had invited the jury, in the exercise of their common sense, to . .

Cited by:

CitedCollins and Keep v Regina CACD 28-Jan-2004
When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
CitedRegina v Johnson; Regina v Hind CACD 11-Apr-2005
The defendant had when at the police station refused to leave his cell to attend for interview. At trial, the judge said that the jury could take account of this as a failure to mention when questioned, something which he now wished to rely upon. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.192659

Regina v Silcot, Raghip and others: CACD 9 Dec 1991

There can be an increased readiness of the courts to accept expert evidence as to the defendant’s mental capacity where the issue is as to the admissibility of a confession statement.

Citations:

Times 09-Dec-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Coles CACD 1995
The 15 year old defendant appealed his conviction on the basis of recklessness, challenging, unsuccessfully, the rule in Caldwell.
Held: Because recklessness was to be judged by the standard of the reasonable prudent man, expert evidence of . .
CitedHenry, Regina v CACD 29-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed his conviction for soliciting to murder and conspiracy to murder. An expert’s opinion now described him as of low intelligence and vulnerable to the sort of pressure of which he complained.
Held: The expert evidence had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.227984

Regina v Stevens: CACD 1995

S was charged with the murder of a woman with whom he had been living.
Held: Evidence of previous occasions on which he had assaulted her were properly admitted as part of the background.

Citations:

[1995] Crim LR 649

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Beedles CACD 31-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed against his conviction for sexual assault. The issue was whether a note written by the complainant to her teacher was admissible as evidence of recent complaint to corroborate her statement. Similar allegations had been made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.225391

Regina v Cole: CACD 1990

Citations:

(1990) 90 Cr App R 478

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Gokal, Abas Kassimali CACD 1997
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 . .
CitedSellick 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224307

Regina v Cochrane: CACD 4 Jun 1992

A building society had credited the defendant with more than was due by error. A series of withdrawals were made before the error was discovered. The defendant appealed saying the judge had been wrong to have admitted computer print outs.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution said that the entry of the pin number amounted to no more than an exercise in typing and that supporting evidence was not required. However the pin number was checked against a number held on the bank’s central computer. Before the judge can decide whether computer printouts are admissible, whether as real evidence or as hearsay, it was necessary to call appropriate authoritative evidence to describe the function and operation of the computer. Though some of the till rolls might be admitted as real evidence, the balance could not. The police had broken so many elements of the Code of Practice that the defendant could not be expected to have confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.

Judges:

McCowan LJ, Waterhouse and Broke JJ

Citations:

[1993] Criminal Law Reports 48

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224083

I J L, G M R, and A K P v United Kingdom (Application Nos 29522/95, 30056/96, and 30574/96): ECFI 13 Oct 2000

The obtaining by compulsion of statements in Companies investigations which were later used in evidence in criminal trials was a breach of the defendant’s human right to a fair trial by enforced self-incrimination. However there was no evidence in this case that there had been any collusion to seek to take advantage of the procedure in planning the timing of the criminal proceedings, and given the complex nature of the matters in issue, the delay was not so unreasonable as to amount to an infringement.

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

European

Criminal Evidence, Company, Human Rights

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.81586

Ibrahim v Crown Prosecution Service: Admin 2016

Admission of evidence under res gestae

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1750 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMorgan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Dec-2016
Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted
The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.579649

Regina v Lanfear: CACD 1968

A jury is not bound uncritically to accept unchallenged expert evidence.

Citations:

(1968) CAR 176

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBrennan v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2014
The defendant, then 22 had a history of disturbed childhood, sexual abuse and outpatient mental health treatment together with one instance when he was sectioned following a suicide attempt. On the undisputed psychiatric evidence he suffered from a . .
CitedBrennan v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2014
The defendant, then 22 had a history of disturbed childhood, sexual abuse and outpatient mental health treatment together with one instance when he was sectioned following a suicide attempt. On the undisputed psychiatric evidence he suffered from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.573480

Regina v Bernard: CCC 17 Apr 1858

Evidence that A was privy to a plot to murder B by explosive machines, held sufficient to go to the jury on counts charging A with murder of C (accidentally killed by the explosion) – wth conspiring to murder him, and as an accessory to the murder.

Judges:

Lord Campbell CJ, Pollock CB, Erle J, Crowder J

Citations:

[1858] EngR 554, (1858) 1 F and F 240, (1858) 175 ER 709

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.289025

Rex v Cole: 1941

Citations:

(1941) 28 Cr App R 43

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Wright and Ormerod CACD 1990
The defendants were charged with indecent assault on a child of 5, who said that the defendants had hurt her in the back and said naughty things to her. The Judge also admitted evidence from the child’s mother of the complaint the child had made to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241277

Director of Public Prosecutions v Christie: HL 7 Apr 1914

At the trial of a man for indecent assault upon a child of tender years the child gave evidence as an unsworn witness under section 30 of the Children Act 1908. His mother and a constable also gave evidence as to statements the child had made on being confronted with the accused shortly after the alleged assault. Held that while not admissible as evidence of identification, the testimony of the mother and constable was admissible to prove the accused’s demeanour at the time.
Held: Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed on this point, but the quashing of the conviction sustained, because the statements did not amount to the corroboration required by section 30.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Earl of Halsbury, Lords Dunedin, Atkinson, Moulton, Parker, and Reading

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 641

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620712

Regina v Acott: HL 12 Mar 1997

Provocation is not an issue in murder until evidence is given which takes the issues beyond a mere refuted cross examination. If there was ‘insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury’ and ‘if there is no such evidence, but merely the speculative possibility that there had been an act of provocation, it is wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider provocation.’ and ‘It remained the duty of the judge to decide whether there was evidence of provoking conduct, which resulted in the defendant losing his self-control. If in the opinion of the judge, even on a view most favourable to the accused, there is insufficient material for a jury to find that it is a reasonable possibility that there was specific provoking conduct resulting in a loss of self-control, there is simply no issue of provocation to be considered by the jury.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Gazette 12-Mar-1997, Times 21-Feb-1997, [1997] UKHL 5, [1997] 1 All ER 706, [1997] 161 JP 368, [1997] 2 Cr App Rep 94, [1997] Crim LR 514, [1997] 1 WLR 306

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Homicide Act 1957 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Acott CACD 5-Apr-1996
To decide whether a judge’s duty under section 3 was triggered it was essential to bear in mind that the word ‘provocation’ was used in an active and not a passive sense. Provocation was that which provoked; it was not the state of being in a temper . .

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Miao CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. His main defence had been that there had been no intention to kill, but the judge had refused to leave to the jury the possibility of provocation.
Held: There was evidence of potentially . .
CitedVan Dongen and Another, Regina v CACD 5-Jul-2005
The defendant brothers appealed convictions for murder. They had pleaded self defence. The injuries on the deceased suggested a substantial number of wounds were inflicted when he was in a curled up defensive post.
Held: The provocation . .
CitedAdolphus Campbell v The State PC 20-Aug-1999
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. The Board considered whether the Court of Appeal should consider additional medical evidence. He was said to have attacked the deceased, . .
CitedSerrano, Regina v CACD 1-Dec-2006
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have . .
PreferredMiao, Regina v CACD 17-Nov-2003
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He said that the judge should have left to the jury the issue of whether there had been provocation.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘It is for the judge to decide if there is evidence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.86029

Virdee and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The National Crime Agency: Admn 11 May 2018

The claimants claimed that the defendant had relied upon transcripts of intercepted telephone calls in order to obtain production orders against third parties. They said that the transcripts had been selected for use, making the orders unlawful.
Held: The claim failed. A failure to make necessary disclosure would undermine an order or warrant, but not all the information was material. Full transcripts were not necessary in this case.

Judges:

Holroyde LJ, Dingemans J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1119 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 302

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618121

River East Supplies Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court At Nottingham: Admn 28 Jul 2017

Privilege against self incrimination and application for production order by foreign state

Judges:

Simon LJ, Sir Kenneth Parker

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1942 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 528, [2017] 2 Cr App R 27, [2017] 4 WLR 135, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 482

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSaunders v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Dec-1996
(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, International

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.591665

Regina v Y (Sexual Offence: Complainant’s Sexual History): CACD 8 Mar 2001

A defendant in an allegation alleging a sexual offence and wanting to introduce evidence of the complainant’s sexual history, could not do so as evidence of the consent of the complainant. He may be able to do so however on the issue of his own belief as to her consent, and where he alleged recent consensual sex. The consequence might be a summing up with more of a flavour of Lewis Carroll than a rehearsal of jurisprudence, but this was the only way of reconciling the need for a fair trial, and the legislation protecting complainants.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 13-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88711

Regina v H Regina v W Regina v M: CACD 6 Jul 2001

The witness had given three statements to police officers. Some time before the trial, the defendant was released, and the witness gave a further statement declining to give evidence on the basis that he was frightened for himself and his family of reprisals. By the time of the trial, it had been three months since he had been seen. The trial judge admitted the written statements. On appeal the defendants argued that they should not have been admitted without evidence as to the state of the witness’ mind at the date of the trial. The appeal court agreed. What mattered was not the historical state of fear, but its presence or absence at the date of the trial. Each case was to be approached according to its own circumstances. Officers should give evidence as to the efforts made to persuade the witness to attend. Consideration should also be given to the use of video links and other ways of ameliorating the fear.

Citations:

Times 06-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 26

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88489

Regina v Hardwick: CACD 28 Feb 2001

The judge has a discretion as to the admission of the written statement made by a witness who had died before trial.
Held: The circumstances must vary, according not least to the nature of the issue on which the deceased’s evidence was required. Simple rules could not always apply, but sufficient and proper warning should be given to the jury about the dangers of relying upon untested evidence. In this case no issue arose as to alibi or identification or intimidation.

Citations:

Times 28-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 369, [2001] 3 Archbold News 2

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 23

Cited by:

CitedLobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88492

Regina v James (Walter): CACD 9 May 2000

Where fresh evidence from a witness who was not available for the trial is sought to be adduced on an appeal, the evidence must also include evidence or explanation as to the background of the new evidence or change in evidence.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88514

Regina v Coventry Justices Ex Parte Bullard and Another: QBD 15 Apr 1992

Computer based evidence, which says what would have been said by the person making the record, remains hearsay, and is inadmissible without statutory provision otherwise. There is no exception for summary civil proceedings for the collection of community charge arrears. Legislation in the Magistrates court had made computer based evidence admissible but only for criminal proceedings. The crucial distinction is between ‘computer print-outs containing information implanted by a human, and print-outs containing records produced without human intervention’. Critical inputs into the computer had been of information either wholly or in part implanted by human agency and were thus inadmissible in evidence. The information showing the amount of the arrears due in respect of community charges had been inputted by a person so that the printout in such circumstances was tantamount to a statement made by the person who fed the data into the machine.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Apr-1992, (1992) 95 CAR 175

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Cited by:

CitedE v London Borough of Islington Admn 25-Feb-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Rating

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86454

Regina v Chelmsford Crown Court Ex Parte Chief Constable of Essex: QBD 26 Jan 1994

Statements made to police investigating a complaint were inadmissible but the Judge still had power to order their disclosure.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 1WLR 359

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 104-3

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86333

Regina v X; R v Y; R v Z: CACD 23 May 2000

A telephone intercept obtained abroad in accordance with the applicable national laws would be admissible as evidence in England even though the method and circumstances of the interception would have been unlawful in this country. There is no rule of public policy which could make admission of such intercepts inappropriate here.

Citations:

Times 23-May-2000

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85621

Regina v Raynor: CACD 19 Sep 2000

A statement in the form of a translation of the witness’s evidence to the interpreter was not the statement of the witness. The statement should be provided in the witness’s original words, and a translation then made. In this case however no prejudice had occurred.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000

Cited by:

CitedBrizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85454

Regina v Perry: CACD 28 Apr 2000

The over frequent reference to Human Rights legislation when challenging identification evidence procedures, was capable of bringing disrepute on that branch of law. The case could be disposed of entirely within national law. Breaches of the Codes of Practice on the conduct of Identification Procedures did not prevent the resulting evidence of identification being admitted.

Citations:

Times 28-Apr-2000

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85443

Regina v Dixon: CACD 2 Nov 2000

Evidence of the conviction of a co-accused for the same offence was a discretion to be used only sparingly by the judge. The jury were in danger of concluding that the fact of the conviction was evidence against the defendant that an offence had indeed taken place. The direction in this case effectively removed from the jury the opportunity to consider properly a main plank of the defendant’s case.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2000

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85234

Regina v Hanratty: CACD 26 Oct 2000

Persuasive but not conclusive evidence of the deceased’s involvement in a notorious murder for which he had hanged had been found by subsequent DNA analysis. That analysis could only be improved by direct DNA analysis to be obtained by exhuming his body. In these circumstances, there was an over-riding public interest in obtaining positive confirmation or otherwise of the deceased’s guilt or innocence.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2000

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v James Hanratty (Deceased) CACD 10-May-2002
Posthumous Appeal – Clear Purpose and Care Needed
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected.
Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v James Hanratty (Deceased) CACD 10-May-2002
Posthumous Appeal – Clear Purpose and Care Needed
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected.
Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85295

Nottingham City Council v Amin: QBD 2 Dec 1999

Where a plain clothes officers had invited a taxi driver to take them to a destination in breach of his licence without disclosing their identity, and he did so willingly, their evidence was not to be excluded as that of an agent provocateur. Despite the Human Rights Convention and Act, the position in England remains substantially the same, as to the presence or otherwise of pressure on the defendant to commit the act, and the effect on the fairness of the hearing by the admission or exclusion of evidence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ suggested the test as: ‘On the one hand it has been recognised as deeply offensive to ordinary notions of fairness if a defendant were to be convicted and punished for committing a crime which he only committed because he had been incited, instigated, persuaded, pressurised or wheedled into committing it by a law enforcement officer. On the other hand it has been recognised that law enforcement agencies have a general duty to the public to enforce the law and it has been regarded as unobjectionable if a law enforcement officer gives a defendant an opportunity to break the law, of which the defendant freely takes advantage, in circumstances where it appears that the defendant would have behaved in the same way if the opportunity had been offered by anyone else.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ

Citations:

Times 02-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 1071

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Looseley (orse Loosely); Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2000 HL 25-Oct-2001
Police Entrapment is no defence to Criminal Act
The defendant complained of his conviction for supplying controlled drugs, saying that the undercover police officer had requested him to make the supply.
Held: It was an abuse of process for the police to go so far as to incite a crime.
CitedRegina v Moon CACD 10-Nov-2004
The defendant, a heroin addict said that the encouragement of a police officer to supply her with a small quantity of heroin amounted to entrapment and that her prosecution should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The officer had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84372

Mcintosh v HM Advocate: HCJ 31 Oct 2000

An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated that presumption of innocence. The section required nothing of the Crown to even suggest any justified grounds of suspicion. The absence of any charge or similar procedure would make it even more necessary to provide the person subject to the application with the right to a fair trial.

Citations:

Times 31-Oct-2000, [2000] DRA 12

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1

Citing:

Appealed toHer Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh PC 5-Feb-2001
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHer Majesty’s Advocate and Another v Mcintosh PC 5-Feb-2001
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .
CitedIn re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Human Rights, Scotland

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83548

Lobban v The Queen: PC 28 Apr 1995

(Jamaica) The judge had no discretion to exclude evidence on request of co-defendant in joint trial. The exculpatory part of co-accused statement not to be excluded since it was his right to have it put in. Those who are charged with an offence allegedly committed in a joint criminal enterprise should generally be tried in a joint trial.

Citations:

Gazette 01-Jun-1995, Times 28-Apr-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 877

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Randall HL 18-Dec-2003
Two defendants accused of murder each sought to place blame for the victim’s death on the other. One sought to rely upon the other’s record of violence as evidence of his co-accused’s propensity to violence.
Held: The record was admissible. By . .
CitedRegina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005
The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83125

Jolley v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 5 May 2000

In a trial on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, the prosecutor failed to bring evidence that the computer involved had been working correctly. This was pointed out by the defendant at the close of his case, and the magistrate allowed the prosecutor to bring that evidence. The appeal failed. The court now has a clear general discretion to admit evidence after a case has been closed but before retiring. When using that discretion the justices must test what prejudice might be caused, but this is no longer an exceptional cases only discretion.

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000

Criminal Evidence, Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82573

Regina v Jones and Jenkins: CACD 6 Jun 2003

The two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. On the prosecution case it was joint enterprise; Jones’ case was that both had indeed attacked the victim, but had caused him only minor injuries and that the fatal injuries had been caused later, perhaps in a road accident; Jenkins’ case was that he had been present but not participating in any way, but in his evidence he acknowledged that the victim’s injuries were serious.
Held: The judge had failed to give the jury an appropriately structured, or indeed any, warning about the danger of relying on the evidence of each defendant as against the other. It was desirable and, in that case, essential, for the jury to receive such a warning even where the cut-throat defences were mirror images.
Auld LJ: ‘Mr Harrington [counsel for the Crown] submitted that the approach in Burrows is to be preferred to that in Cheema in the circumstances of this case, because Cheema was not a direct cut-throat case, whereas Burrows was . .
Mr Harrington also submitted that the judge’s general directions to the jury as to how they should approach the evidence in this case sufficed in the circumstances. He referred to: the judge’s direction . . as to the need for separate treatment of the cases for and against each defendant, to his general direction . . as to the need to consider the credibility of each witness in the case and whether it is self seeking or given to protect or to reflect badly on one defendant rather than another; and to his direction . . as to the need for the jury to take the same care in their consideration of the evidence of each of the defendants as they did in respect of any other witness in the case. Those three directions, submitted Mr Harrington, taken together, were sufficient for the purpose.
Whether the defences are ‘mirror-image’ cut-throat defences, the law, since R v. Prater . . has been that some such warning should normally be considered and given. Burrows was a case in which, as Judge LJ, giving the judgment of the Court said, ‘the difficulty facing the trial judge was somewhat stark’. Any warning he might have given applied equally to each of the two co-defendants, whose cut-throat defences were almost a mirror-image of each other. Each had given evidence casting all possible blame on the other. It may be, as Judge LJ said, that within the confines of that particular case, the trial judge could not warn the jury to approach the evidence of each defendant with care because he had an axe to grind, without indicating to the jury that he had formed an adverse view about the way in which it should be approached by the jury. Though, why that was so, even in the particular circumstances of that case, is not readily apparent to me.
’40. A judge, even in a case of a mirror-image cut-throat defences, in the separate interest of each defendant, should be able to tailor a warning about the evidence of each against the other in a way that would not indicate that he, the judge, had formed an adverse view as to the defence of one or other or both. Even though the cross allegations are inextricably bound up in the defences of each, it is for the judge, in a neutral way, to give the jury such assistance as he can in their evaluation of the credibility of the evidence of each defendant as it is of that of all the witnesses in the case, whether for the prosecution or the defence.
We see no reason to depart from the approach of this Court in R v. Knowlden and Knowlden . . and confirmed in Cheema, that a judge, in exercising his discretion as to what to say to the jury should at least warn them, where one defendant has given evidence adverse to another, to examine the evidence of each with care because each has or may have an interest of his own to serve. Cheema was, as Mr Aubrey has observed, a cut-throat defence.
There was also, as Mr Aubrey commented in argument, a particular need for some such warning in this case, where Jenkins, unlike Jones, had refused to answer questions in interview and was therefore able, if he wished, to tailor his defence to the facts in evidence.
In our view, the failure to give such a warning was a serious omission and unfairly prejudicial to Jones’ defence, and also, though possibly to a lesser extent, to that of Jenkins. Accordingly, we do not consider that the general directions as to evidence of the judge to which Mr Harrington referred us were sufficient for the purpose.
Our attention has been drawn to current guidance of the Judicial Studies Board in the form of a note to its specimen direction No 26, which advises a form of warning to a jury where one defendant has given evidence which may have an adverse effect on a co-defendant. The guidance in the note is that such warning should not be given where co-defendants have given evidence against each other. The authority given for that proposition is Burrows.
It follows from what we have said that we consider that no such general principle can be extracted from the case of Burrows, where it is plain from Judge LJ’s judgment that the Court was heavily influenced by the facts of that case.
Mr Aubrey has ventured an approach, which may be appropriate in many or most cases where a trial judge has to consider what if any warning to give where co-defendants have given evidence against each other. It seems to us to accord broadly with the general observations we have made about the principles derived from Knowlden and Knowlden and Cheema, subject always of course to what justice demands on the particular facts of each case.
Mr Aubrey suggested that a judge, when dealing with the case against and defence of each co-defendant, might consider four points to put to the jury – points that would not offend any sense of justice and certainly would not cast the judge in the light of one who has formed an adverse view against either or both co-defendants. First, the jury should consider the case for and against each defendant separately. Second, the jury should decide the case on all the evidence, including the evidence of each defendant’s co-defendant. Third, when considering the evidence of the co-defendants, the jury should bear in mind that he or she may have an interest to serve or, as it is often put, an axe to grind. Fourth, the jury should assess the evidence of the co-defendants in the same way as that of the evidence of any other witness in the case. That seems to us to be a useful – and suitably focused – approach when judges are faced with this particular problem, and we commend it.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 1966, [2004] 1 Cr App R 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
CitedRegina v Burrows CACD 23-Apr-1999
One defendant had been found when searched to have a plastic egg-shaped capsule with crack cocaine inside. He now appealed the direction given to the jury as to the evidence against him given by a co-defendant.
Held: The appeal was dismissed, . .

Cited by:

CitedPetkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .
CitedNajib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.244804

Bailey v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 30 Jul 1998

Where a defendant denied a conviction on his record and asserted that someone else had given his details to the police and the court, then that positive evidence to counter that must be brought before acting upon the conviction.

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.78082

R v Regina: CACD 9 Oct 2017

Appeal against conviction relating to the Jury’s consideration of transcripts of ABE interviews. The appellant was convicted of a number of sexual offences at Norwich Crown Court

Judges:

Simon LJ, Holgate J, Sir Kenneth Parker

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Crim 1487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595932

Cummings v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 15 Dec 2016

Appeal by way of case stated from a convicting the Appellant of three road traffic offences, including failure to provide a specimen of breath for analysis contrary to section 7(6) of the 1988 Act. The ground of appeal is that the justices wrongly acceded to the prosecution application to allow a police officer to refresh her memory pursuant to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 from form MG DD/A which related to the details of the breath test procedure alleged to have been carried out at the police station. Without the officer’s consequential evidence, there would have been no basis to convict for that offence.
Held: Dismissed.

Judges:

Lindblom LJ, Soole J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3624 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988, Criminal Justice Act 2003 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589899

S v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2016

‘This case concerns the approach the court should take when the hearsay account of a prosecution witness is introduced who i) retracted the allegations he or she made against the defendant in a series of letters that were – all save one – available at trial, ii) was outside the jurisdiction at the time of trial and iii) refused to attend court to give evidence.’

Judges:

Fulford LJ, Wyn Williams J, Lucraft QC HHJ

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Crim 1908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589884

Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd: QBD 8 May 2017

The claimant asserted that documents generated during investigations by lawyers acting for the defendants were not protected by legal professional privilege.

Judges:

Andrews DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1017 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1987 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Legal Professions

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584208

Palmer, Regina v: CACD 6 Dec 2016

The court considered the admission in evidence of social media messages. The defendant had been convicted of the murder of her violent boyfriend, and objected unsuccessfully to the admission of texts which she said were unduly prejudicial.
Held: Such decisions were fact specific, and in this fact-specific case the judge was right in the conclusion he reached. The evidence was admissible.

Judges:

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ, William Davis J, Stockdale QC HHJ Rec Manchester

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Crim 2237

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedOsbourne, Regina v CACD 13-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He complained at the admission of a statement made by the police surgeon who had attended him in the police station as evidence of bad character under the 2003 Act. The statement was as to his . .
CitedFox v Regina CACD 2-Apr-2009
Notations in a personal notebook were not evidence of reprehensible conduct. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581608

Blackman, Regina v (Media): CACD 28 Mar 2017

The defendant officer appealed against his conviction for murder. Whilst serving a s an officer in Afghanistan, he had killed a captured soldier. That conviction had been quashed and a conviction for manslaughter on diminished responsibility substituted.
Held: The court now gave reason why it had refused to allow republication in the media of video evidence of the offence.

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Crim 326

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBlackman, Regina v CACD 22-May-2014
The appellant had been convicted of murder. As an Army sergeant serving in Afghanistan, he had killed a captured insurgent. . .
See AlsoBlackman, Regina v CACD 15-Mar-2017
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. As an army officer serving in Afghanistan he had killed an injured captured insurgent.
Held: The defendant had at the time of the offence suffered a recognised psychiatric condition, . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBlackman, Regina v (Sentence) CACD 28-Mar-2017
Sentence – manslaughter of prisoner
The defendant whilst serving in Afghanistan had killed a prisoner. His appeal against his conviction for murder had been successful, and a conviction for manslaughter had been substituted on the basis that he was at the time suffering a recognised . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Media

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581277

A Ltd and Othersi, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2016

The Serious Fraud Office appealed against rulings on the admission of evidence after its exclusion under section 78.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The appeal had been brought within time and could proceed. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The judge confused or elided two quite separate concepts, namely (a) the ‘identification’ principle which is used to identify the directing mind and will of a corporate body and (b) the so-called ‘three-pronged test’ governing the admissibility of acts and declarations made by one co-conspirator in the absence of another. In doing so, the judge fell into error.
The acts and declarations of one conspirator in furtherance of the common design may be admissible against a co-conspirator. This is so whether or not the evidence is hearsay evidence, because such evidence is an exception to the rule against hearsay.
‘ There is no question of only one human mind being implicated and, as against the company, the evidence of the directing minds is admissible as direct evidence against the company. The only relevant principle or test to be applied as between BK and A Ltd was the ‘identification’ principle, i.e. proof of the guilt of the directing mind and will (BK) was probative of the guilt of the corporation (A Ltd). Thus, insofar as the diary entries of BK were probative of his guilty state of mind at the relevant time, they were relevant and admissible also to prove the guilt of A Ltd, since he (BK) was a directing mind and will of A Ltd. In our judgment, the judge should have admitted the diary entries of BK on this simple basis.’

Sir Brian Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, David Richards LJ, Haddon-Cave J
[2016] EWCA Crim 1469
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Justice Act 2003 58 118
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLennard’s Carrying Company Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited HL 1915
The House was asked as to when the acts of an individual became those of his employer under section 502 (‘any loss or damage happening without (the ship owner’s) actual fault or privity’).
Held: Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘It must be upon the . .
CitedRegina v McDonnell 1966
Bristol Assizes – the defendant was indicted, inter alia, with two counts of conspiring with a company. Each count concerning a separate company. The defendant was the ‘sole person in either of the companies . . responsible for any of the acts of . .
CitedTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedMeridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v The Securities Commission Co PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) Lord Hofmann said: ‘There is in fact no such thing as the company as such, no ‘ding an sich’, only the applicable rules. To say that a company cannot do something means only that there is no one whose doing of that act would, under the . .
CitedRegina v St Regis Paper Company Ltd CACD 4-Nov-2011
The court was asked as to the extent which the appellant, St. Regis Paper Company Limited, could be held criminally liable for intentionally making a false entry in a record required for environmental pollution control in its application to offences . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570714

Regina v Gilfoyle: CACD 20 Dec 2000

The evidence of a psychological autopsy was not admissible in court proceedings. The field was not one with sufficiently established evidence of value and standards to allow it properly to be assessed. If it were allowed on behalf of the defence in order to establish possible intentions of the deceased, the defence might in due course face similar evidence being brought against the defendant himself.
The expert had not embarked on the exercise in question before and there were no criteria by reference to which the court could test the quality of his opinions and no substantial body of academic writing approving his methodology. The psychologist’s views were based on one-sided information and doubted that the assessment of levels of happiness or unhappiness was a task for an expert rather than jurors.

Rose VP LJ, Hallett, Crane JJ
Times 13-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Crim 81, [2001] 2 Cr App R 5
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.88471

Regina v Gilfoyle: CACD 6 Nov 1995

The Court of Appeal has power to receive and call for additional evidence in interests of justice, and even though it had been ruled inadmissible at the trial if was relevant.

Gazette 29-Nov-1995, Ind Summary 06-Nov-1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1991 23(1), Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.86695

Wynes, Regina v: CACD 21 Nov 2014

The defendant appealed against his convictions for the sexual assault of a child, saying that the court had wrongly admitted evidence of a previous conviction for possession of an indecent photograph. That conviction had been on an agreed basis and had resulted in a conditional discharge. The prosecution here had put in that conviction on a different basis.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘The acceptance or at least the non-contradiction of the basis of plea in 2009 does not create any kind of issue estoppel between the Crown and the defendant, since no such principle exists in English criminal law. This is not a double jeopardy case, any more than Z was. The appellant cannot of course be re-sentenced for the child pornography offence. But Judge Ticehurst was right to rule that it could be admitted, as evidence of misconduct, in the trial which is the subject of this appeal, and was entitled to exercise his discretion as he did. The appellant’s conviction for the offences against A is safe. ‘

Bean LJ, Stewart J, Collier QC HHJ
[2014] EWCA Crim 2585
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Z (Prior acquittal) HL 22-Jun-2000
The defendant on a charge of rape had been tried and acquitted of the rape of different women on three previous occasions in three separate trials. The prosecution wished to call those three complainants to give similar fact evidence in support of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.540493

Regina v A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister): HL 21 Mar 2001

An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant’s sexual history. Though the Crown would conduct the appeal, the Home Secretary, whose Act was in issue sought to be joined. The case was still in anticipation of the trial, and the rules anticipated notice being served when such a declaration was considered. Nevertheless, the proposal would improve efficiency, and the Director of Public Prosecutions served a different function in the appeal. The Home Secretary could be allowed to be joined at this stage.

Times 21-Mar-2001
Human Rights Act 1998 5 41, Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rules 2000 (2000 No 2036), Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
See AlsoRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .
CitedIn re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.88368

Shand v The Queen: PC 27 Nov 1995

(Jamaica) The case for the defence was that the identification witnesses were deliberately lying and it was not suggested that they were mistaken, so that the sole line of defence was fabrication. The identification evidence was exceptionally good and the court applied the test in Domican v R, that the jury acting reasonably and properly would have returned the same verdict had the judge given them the appropriate Turnbull warning and explanation and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Held: A Turnbull identification direction can be briefer if it was an attack on credibility. Lord Slynn said: ‘no precise form of words need be used so long as the essential elements of the warning are given to the jury’, and ‘the cases in which the warning can be entirely dispensed with must be wholly exceptional, even where credibility is the sole line of defence. In the latter type of case the judge should normally, and even in the exceptional case would be wise to tell the jury in an appropriate form to consider whether they are satisfied that the witness was not mistaken in view of the danger of the mistake referred to in R v Turnbull [1977] Q.B. 224.’

Lord Slynn
Times 29-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 67, [1995] UKPC 46
Bailii
Citing:
CitedDomican v The Queen 1992
(Australia) Mason CJ said: ‘A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to . .

Cited by:
CitedPhipps v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another PC 27-Jun-2012
phipps_dppPC2012
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that he had been prejudiced because the jury were told that he had been produced from custody, and one of his witnesses was produced in court in chains, thus . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence, Commonwealth

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.89184

Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands): Admn 13 Feb 2014

The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, prima facie, admissible if ‘relevant’ to a matter in issue in the proceedings. Under section 76 for the reliability of a confession to be challenged all that is required is a ‘representation’ to the Court that the confession meets the conditions in section 76(2)(b). The representation need not demonstrate that the confession ‘was’ unreliable; all that need be advanced is that the confession ‘may have been’ unreliable. Section 76 is concerned to protect against a risk of unreliability. The test for the Court is not whether the confession was reliable per se. The Court is concerned not with the intrinsic quality of the confession as evidence but with the manner in which it came into being and as to the risk of it being unreliable. This is evident from section 76(2) which states that a confession may be excluded ‘notwithstanding that it may be true’. The focus of the analysis is the position that pertained at the time of the impugned confession; cf ‘in the circumstances existing at the time’ in section 76. The Court therefore cannot examine the confession in the light of other evidence which might arise in the course of the trial insofar as that evidence does not bear upon the conditions prevailing at the time. The words in section 76(2)(b) ‘anything said or done’ include acts and omissions i.e. failures to do something; the distinction between acts and omissions will in any event frequently be artificial. Culpability on the part of the police is not a sine qua non to exclusion of a confession. The assessment under section 76 PACE will take into account whether there has been adherence to the Codes to PACE. A failure to adhere to a requirement in PACE is not mere ‘rigmarole’. Not every breach of PACE or the Code will lead to the exclusion of the evidence in consequence thereof. If there has been a breach the Court will consider whether it was a material breach i.e. whether had the breach not occurred it would have made a difference. the position under section 78 PACE 1984 which concerns fairness will not normally differ from that based upon the application to the same facts of section 76 PACE, however section 78 could in principle exert a broader protective sweep than section 76 and therefore it acts as an override protection for a detainee.
As to the suggestion that she had not been allowed access to a solicitor: ‘ the Appellant voluntarily chose to be interviewed without receiving advice and without the assistance of a solicitor during her interview. But critically, she was given clear and repeated offers of advice both in the form of a face to face consultation and in the form of access to telephone advice.’ The appeal on that ground failed.

Green J
[2014] EWHC 283 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76 78
Citing:
CitedScott v The Queen PC 1989
The Board was asked whether sworn depositions of two deceased witnesses should have been admitted.
Held: A warning should be given when admitting identification involving communications between spouses. A conviction based on uncorroborated . .
CitedRegina v Gill CACD 2004
Police officers had continued the interview of a suspect despite it becoming clear that he suffered mental incapacity. The trial judge having heard an application to have the interview excluded at an early point and only gave his reasons much later, . .
CitedCharles v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 26-Nov-2009
The police were admitted to have failed to comply with Code of Practice A. The defendant appealed against the conviction on his admission.
Held: A failure to adhere to a requirement in PACE is not mere ‘rigmarole’: ‘These provisions are not a . .
CitedRegina v Dhorajiwala CACD 9-Jun-2010
The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not . .
CitedRegina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R 1988
R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined. . .
CitedRegina v Samuel CA 1988
The defendant had been arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. He asked for a solicitor, but one was refused under section 58 of the 1984 Act. He appealed against his conviction saying that he should have been allowed access to a solicitor.
Criminal Evidence

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521235

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn): HL 15 Dec 2000

A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence at trial. The defendant objected, and claimed that it had been gained and used in breach of the section. The original sample itself was not relied upon at trial. The issue was whether the unlawful retention so tainted the investigation process, that the later sample should not have been admitted. The two parts of the section were strikingly different. After an acquittal the sample should have been destroyed. Part b merely prohibited the use in an investigation, but that did not go on in turn to make inadmissible subsequent evidence. To the extent that such an interpretation was an interference with the suspect’s private life, the interference, as qualified, was necessary to ensure prosecution of serious crime. At trial the accused had full opportunity to contest the reliability of the DNA evidence. There was no principle under the Convention that unlawfully obtained evidence was not admissible. The purpose of the criminal law is to permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. Serious crime should be effectively investigated and prosecuted, with fairness to all. This requires the court to consider three interests, the position of the accused, the victim, and the public. The austere interpretation of the Court of Appeal conflicted with the plain words of the statute and produces results which are contrary to good sense. A consideration of the public interest reinforces the interpretation adopted. The question to be asked in respect of the failure to comply with a statutory requirement was to focus on the consequences of non-compliance.

Lord Steyn
Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 15-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 63, [2001] 2 WLR 56, [2001] 2 AC 91
House of Lords, Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 64
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999 (Lynn) CACD 26-Mar-1999
There was an obligation to destroy fingerprints and samples in respect of persons who were acquitted. Nevertheless, if such material was unlawfully retained, it could be used for the purpose of investigating another offence, and the evidence could . .
Appeal fromRegina v B (Attorney-General’s Reference No 3 of 1999); Regina v Weir CACD 26-May-2000
Where a defendant gave a sample of DNA during an investigation, but the sample was not destroyed on his acquittal, evidence obtained from a cross match relating to a different crime was not admissible. The statute requires the samples to be . .

Cited by:
CitedSekhon, etc v Regina CACD 16-Dec-2002
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements.
Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, . .
CitedRussell v Devine (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Northern Ireland) HL 8-May-2003
The House was asked whether a specimen of blood required under the regulations, having been requested at a hospital or health centre had to be taken there.
Held: The health centre was not a hospital within the regulations. However the request . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedRegina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
CitedR, Regina v CACD 4-Apr-2008
The defendant appealed his conviction for rape, saying that the complainant’s evidence had wrongfully been allowed to be given over a remote video link. Provisions to allow such means of giving evidence had been intended to be phased in only as . .
CitedRegina v Sargent HL 25-Oct-2001
When a telephone engineer used his position to make unauthorised telephone intercepts, and produced apparent evidence of criminal activity, he was, under the Act, a person engaged in providing a public communications system, and the recordings were . .
CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.77969

Petkar and Farquar, Regina v: CACD 16 Oct 2003

The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was incorrect, the judge having left open the inferences which might be drawn.
Held: The direction had not excluded other possible inferences, but this was insufficient in this case to support the appeal. However, the judge had failed to say that no inference should be drawn unless no explanation for the silence had been given. The defendants had given explanations. This amounted to a misdirection.
Rix LJ recalled that the Judicial Studies Board direction provided that the jury should be directed that ‘an inference should only be drawn if . . the prosecution’s case is `so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him”. This was a striking way to reflect the need identified in R v Cowan for there needed to be a case to answer.

Rix LJ, Douglas Brown J, Sir Richard Tucker
[2003] EWCA Crim 2668, [2004] 1 Cr App R 22
Bailii
Criminal Justice nd Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Jones and Jenkins CACD 6-Jun-2003
The two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. On the prosecution case it was joint enterprise; Jones’ case was that both had indeed attacked the victim, but had caused him only minor injuries and that the fatal injuries had been . .
CitedRegina v Cowan and Another CACD 12-Oct-1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof . .
CitedRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
CitedRegina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
CitedRamadan El-Delbi, Regina v CACD 20-Jun-2003
The court considered an appeal where the jury had been invited to draw an inference from the defendant’s silence at interview that the defendant ‘had not had a chance to prepare his story’ as being its equivalent.
Held: The court accepted the . .
CitedRegina v McGarry CACD 16-Jul-1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the . .
CitedRegina v Birchall CACD 20-Jan-1998
The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial
Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard . .
CitedRegina v Chenia CACD 1-Nov-2002
CS The defendant had made no comment replies during interview. He did not give evidence at trial, but otherwise took part, though he did not put any fact before the jury. The judge directed the jury that they . .
CitedRegina v Gill CACD 21-Jul-2000
When a defendant was silent, it was necessary for the court to be especially careful to give precise and accurate directions on the effect of such silence as to the drawing of adverse inferences. Having answered questions on some aspects, it was not . .
CitedRegina v JO CACD 9-Jun-2000
The defendant who was aged 16 gave a no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor. At trial he waived privilege and his solicitor gave evidence that he had given him before interview a very similar account of the incident to that which the . .
CitedRegina v Daly CACD 23-Nov-2001
CS Kennedy LJ: ‘we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to . .
CitedRegina v Prater CCA 1960
Where one defendant gave evidence incriminating his co-defendant, just as in cases where an accomplice gave evidence for the prosecution, a full corroboration warning was desirable. . .
CitedRegina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
CitedRegina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
CitedRegina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker CACD 24-Oct-2000
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
CitedNajib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
CitedBlack v Regina CACD 17-Jul-2020
Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference
The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.186823

Charles, Regina v: CACD 28 Jul 2009

The court was asked whether the legal burden of proving whether a defendant acted without reasonable excuse in breach of an Anti-social Behaviour Order rests upon the Crown or the defence.
Held: It was for the prosecution to establish that the defendant had acted without a reasonable excuse when acting in breach of the ASBO. The judge had acted without being advised of the JSB guide which stated that if the defendant raised the evidential issue of reasonable excuse, it was for the prosecution to prove lack of reasonable excuse.

Lord Justice Thomas, Mr Justice Wilkie and Mrs Justice Dobbs
[2009] EWCA Crim 1570, Times 25-Aug-2009, (2009) 173 JP 481, [2010] 1 Cr App R 2
Bailii
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1(10)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Richards CACD 10-Mar-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for breach of a non-molestation order. He said that the prosecutor should have had the burden of proving that he had no lawful excuse for the acts complained of. He was said to have gone to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.365621

Regina v Seton: CACD 12 Mar 2010

The defendant had been charged with murder. He served a late defence statement blaming the murder on a man called P who was already serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. P refused to respond to police enquiries of him, but in telephone calls he made abundantly clear to members of his family his indignation towards the false allegation. Having considered all the relevant section 114(2) factors the judge permitted the prosecution to adduce in evidence recordings of P’s telephone conversations. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had carried out a full analysis of the interests of justice and also the prosecution case against the defence was otherwise a powerful one.

Stanley Burnton LJ, Collins and Davis JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 450, (2010) 174 JP 241
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAdeojo and Another v Regina CACD 6-Feb-2013
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder saying that the court should not have relied upon hearsay evidence. A witness had refused to give evidence, but his earlier evidnece was used.
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.406575

Kuruma v The Queen: PC 8 Dec 1954

(Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa) The defendant appealed against his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition, saying that the evidence had been obtained by unlawful means, and should not have been admitted against him.
Held: Lord Goddard said: ‘In their Lordships’ opinion the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. While this proposition may not have been stated in so many words in any English case there are decisions which support it, and in their Lordships’ opinion it is plainly right in principle.’ However, the court retains a wide discretion to exclude evidence, and: ‘There can be no difference in principle for this purpose between a civil and a criminal case. No doubt in a criminal case the judge always has a discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused…. If, for instance, some admission of some piece of evidence, e.g., a document, had been obtained from a defendant by a trick, no doubt the judge might properly rule it out’.

Lord Goddard LCJ
[1955] AC 197, [1954] UKPC 43, [1955] 2 WLR 223, [1955] Crim LR 339, (1955) 119 JP 157, [1955] Crim LR 69, [1955] 1 All ER 236
Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Leathem 1861
The court overruled an objection to production of a letter which had been discovered in consequence of an inadmissible statement made by the accused: ‘It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible.’ . .

Cited by:
ConfirmedDubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
ModifiedJones v University of Warwick CA 4-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedRegina v Sang HL 25-Jul-1979
The defendant appealed against an unsuccessful application to exclude evidence where it was claimed there had been incitement by an agent provocateur.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no defence of entrapment in English law. All evidence . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
CitedThe Public Prosecution Service v Elliott and Another CANI 28-Sep-2011
The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the case based upon fingerprint evidence. The prints had been taken digitally using a device which had not been approved as required. . .
CitedPublic Prosecution Service v McKee SC 22-May-2013
Non-approval didn’t devalue fingerprints
The court was asked: ‘what are the statutory consequences if the fingerprints of a defendant have been taken in a police station in Northern Ireland by an electronic device for which the legislation required approval from the Secretary of State, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.179806

Wright v Wenlock: 1971

The court set out the circumstances in which, in the absense of an explanation, the only proper inference is careless driving.
Lord Parker CJ said ‘the facts of a particular case may be such that, in the absence of some explanation the only possible inference is careless driving’

Lord Parker CJ
[1971] RTR 228, [1972] CLR 49
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBingham, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed by case stated against a conviction for driving a lorry without due care and attention, leading to the death of another road user. There had been an unexplained swing of the rear of his trailer out into the path of the other . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Criminal Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538292

Morgan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 6 Dec 2016

Res Gestae Evidence correctly admitted

The appellant challenged by case stated the admission by magistrates at his trial of two pieces of evidence under the res gestae principle under section 118(3) of the 2003 Act. The allegation was one of domestic violence. The court had admitted the distressed call by the complainant for the police, and the body cam evidence of the officers attending. The complainant had refused to give evidence or support the complaint.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had taken into account all the matters required of him, and there had been supporting evidence, and he had found the appellant’s evidence not credible.

Treacy LJ, Wilkie J
[2016] EWHC 3414 (Admin)
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 118(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
CitedRatten v The Queen PC 1-Jul-1971
Res Gestae to admit circumstances of complaint
(Victoria) Evidence had been admitted under the res gestae rule, that a woman making a telephone call was in a hysterical state.
Held: It was properly used. Where a statement is made either by the victim of an attack or by a bystander, which . .
CitedRegina v Andrews HL 1987
Res Gestae no means of avoiding witness
The court should deprecate any attempt to use the res gestae doctrine as a device to avoid calling a witness if he or she were available. The court laid down six tests for the admission of evidence under the res gestae rule.
Lord Ackner said: . .
CitedRegina v Riat and Others CACD 11-Jul-2012
Five defendants appealed against their convictions after the admission of hearsay evidence.
Held: The court re-iterated that the importance of the hearsay evidence to the case remained a vital consideration when deciding upon its . .
CitedIbrahim v Crown Prosecution Service Admin 2016
Admission of evidence under res gestae . .
CitedBarnaby v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Feb-2015
Admission of hearsay evidence
The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction for assault. He said that certain evidence, a statement from the complainaint, and a recording of the 999 call, should not have been admitted as hearsay.
Held: Fulford LJ said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.579648

Athwal and Others, Regina v: CACD 7 May 2009

The appellants challenged their conviction for murder and sentences. The victim was the young second wife of the first defendant. It was said that she had been unfaithful, and having been lured to India, had been murdered there. She had disappeared, but no body had been found. Relatives then came forward to give evidence of a conspiracy to murder. A claim was made that the prosecution for murder was an abuse of process, because there had been an inequality of arms, with legal aid being refused for substantive investigations in India, though the prosecution had made such investigations.
Held: There had been no abuse of process. The substantial disputes related to events in England. Complaint had been made as to the use made of previous inconsistent statements. The court now found that the judge had failed properly to apply the 2003 Act, which should now be used to provide a comprehensive code on the use of hearsay evidence. However this did not affect the safety of the convictions.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Mr Justice Mackay and Mr Justice Stadlen
[2009] EWCA Crim 789, Times 14-Jul-2009, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 14, [2009] Crim LR 726, [2009] 1 WLR 2430
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Momodou and Limani CACD 2-Feb-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions and sentence for violent disorder and assault during an uprising at Yarl’s Wood Detention centre. It was said that witnesses had been coached, other defence witnesses had been returned to their . .
CitedNominal Defendant v Clements 1961
(Australia) Dixon CJ said of the rules regarding the significance of previous inconsistent statements: ‘in as much as the rule forms a definite exception to the general principle excluding statements made out of court and admits a possibly . .
CitedRegina v Oyesiku CACD 1971
The court considered the admissibility of evidence of consistent statements in order to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. There may be a residual discretion with the judge to permit re-examination to show consistency when there is . .
CitedSubramaniam v Director of Public Prosecutions PC 1956
(Malaysia) The defendant sought to advance a defence of duress under a section of the Penal Code of the Federated Malay States which provided that, with certain exceptions, ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it . .
CitedT, Regina v CACD 13-Feb-2008
Section 120 does not go as to admissibility
David Clarke J explained the effect of the section: ‘section 120(2) is not itself a provision governing admissibility . . what the sub-section does is to regulate the use to which such evidence, once admitted, may be put. It is then admissible as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.341837

Mills v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 3 Dec 2008

The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified, saying that they had had insufficient evidence that he was such. It was not disputed that he was driving. Previous convictions for the same offence had been entered, but the details did not show the sentences imposed, no certificate of disqualification was entered, and it was not formally admitted. The magistrates had said that they relied on answers of ‘no comment’ given at interview.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the person accused was a disqualified driver, and secondly it can be proved by any admissible means, such as an admission — even a non-formal one by the accused — that he was a disqualified driver. It was wholly inappropriate for the magistrates to have drawn any inference from the lack of comment on the part of the appellant. It is not as if he subsequently relied on any fact or matter which gave rise to the opportunity of drawing the adverse inference from the failure to answer the question.

Scot Baker LJ, Maddison J
[2008] EWHC 3304 (Admin), (2009) 173 JP 157, [2009] RTR 12
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 101(1)(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPattison v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 15-Dec-2005
The court considered the circumstances under which evidence of previous convictions could be admitted against a defendant where he did not admit that he was the same person. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.293959

Rex v Berg and others: CCA 1927

The defendants were said to have conducted a disorderly house in providing exhibitions of a perverted nature.
Held: The common law offence of keeping a disorderly house is committed when the house is so conducted as to violate law and good order. Letters found in such a house referring to unnatural practices may be put in evidence of such use.
(1927) 20 Cr App R 38
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCourt, Regina v CACD 9-Feb-2012
The defendants appealed against their convictions under common law for keeping a disorderly house. They were landlords using an agreement requiring the tenant not to be used for immoral purposes. There was evidence of limited sexual activity. Only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.451143

Regina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2): HL 17 May 2001

The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant as to make the trial unfair without its admission, the section excluding such admission should be read so as to allow admission of such evidence. Evidence of earlier sexual behaviour of a woman has in the past been used to stereotype them as being both unchaste and untruthful. There had remained a serious mischief to be corrected. Nevertheless, a prior relationship could well affect the minds of the parties, and may be relevant. What constituted ‘at or about the same time’ for the purposes of admission, was to be read accordingly.
Lord Steyn observed that, while the right to a fair trial was absolute in the sense that a conviction obtained in breach of it could not stand, in determining what the concept of a fair trial entails, account could be taken of the familiar triangulation of the interests of the accused, the victim, and society.
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton
Times 24-May-2001, [2001] UKHL 25, [2001] 3 All ER 1, [2001] 2 WLR 1586, [2002] 1 AC 45, [2001] UKHRR 825, (2001) 165 JPN 750, [2001] HRLR 48, [2001] Cr App R 21, 11 BHRC 225, (2001) 165 JP 609
Bailii, House of Lords
Human Rights Act 1998 3, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 41
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoRegina v A (Joinder of Appropriate Minister) HL 21-Mar-2001
An appeal was to be heard by the committee in which it was expected that a declaration of incompatibility would be considered in respect of legislation restricting the raising by a defendant on a charge of rape of the complainant’s sexual history. . .

Cited by:
CitedGoode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 18-Jun-2003
The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedBalamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2003
The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. . .
CitedRusbridger and Another v Attorney General CA 20-Mar-2002
The paper wanted to publish an article about the monarchy but was concerened that it might lead to it being prosecuted under the 1848 Act. The complainant sought declarations as to the incompatibility of the 1848 Act with the 1998 Act.
Held: . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
CitedHammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
CitedRegina v F (Complainant’s sexual history) CACD 3-Mar-2005
The defendant had sought to raise the complainant’s sexual history in evidence. The allegation was that he had repeatedly raped his step daughter. He wished to put in evidence that after she had grown up, they had lived together after she had . .
CitedRoberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
CitedFrancis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 10-Nov-2005
The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or . .
CitedWilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
CitedPearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
CitedIn re A (A Minor) FD 8-Jul-2011
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories . .
CitedA v P (Surrogacy: Parental Order: Death of Applicant) FD 8-Jul-2011
M applied for a parental order under the 2008 Act. The child had been born through a surrogacy arrangement in India, which was lawful there, but would have been unlawful here. The clinic could not guarantee a biological relationship with the child. . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
CitedChild Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
CitedMatheson v Mazars Solutions Ltd EAT 16-Dec-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application. The application had been presented timeously at the ET in Edinburgh, but was out of time when retransmitted to Glasgow. The tribunal had found the Edinburgh office to be . .
CitedGjoni v Regina CACD 9-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape, raising an issue as to the proper approach to a judgment whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of the complainant relating to a ‘relevant issue in the case’ within the meaning of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.88367

Regina v Russell-Jones: CACD 1995

The Crown cannot be required to adduce evidence which (or to tender for cross-examination a witness whose evidence) is not capable of belief: ‘. . . the prosecution ought normally to call or offer to call all the witnesses who give direct evidence of the primary facts of the case, unless for good reason, in any instance, the prosecutor regards the witness’s evidence as unworthy of belief. In most cases the jury should have available all of that evidence as to what actually happened, which the prosecution, when serving statements, considered to be material, even if there are inconsistencies between one witness and another. The defence cannot always be expected to call for themselves witnesses of the primary facts whom the prosecution has discarded. For example, the evidence they may give, albeit at variance with other evidence called by the Crown, may well be detrimental to the defence case. If what a witness of the primary facts has to say is properly regarded by the prosecution as being incapable of belief, or as some of the authorities say ‘incredible’, then his evidence cannot help the jury assess the overall picture of the crucial events; hence, it is not unfair that he should not be called . . .
The prosecutor is also, as we have said, the primary judge of whether or not a witness to the material events is incredible, or unworthy of belief. It goes without saying that he could not properly condemn a witness as incredible merely because, for example, he gives an account at variance with that of a larger number of witnesses, and one which is less favourable to the prosecution case than that of the others.
A prosecutor properly exercising his discretion will not therefore be obliged to proffer a witness merely in order to give the defence material with which to attack the credit of other witnesses on whom the Crown relies. To hold otherwise would, in truth, be to assert that the prosecution are obliged to call a witness for no purpose other than to assist the defence in its endeavour to destroy the Crown’s own case. No sensible rule of justice could require such a stance to be taken.’
Kennedy LJ
[1995] 1 CAR 538, [1995] 3 All ER 239
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v W (Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972) CACD 8-May-2003
The allegation was of a serious assault on the defendant’s wife. The prosecution considered she would not be a reliable witness, and did not call her. Other evidence being inadmissible, the defendant was acquitted. The AG appealed.
Held: There . .
CitedRegina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
CitedGrant v The Queen PC 16-Jan-2006
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that the admission of an unsworn statement by one witness and the non-admission of another similar statement who did not either attend court was unconstitutional. He shot the victim . .
CitedRegina 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: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.181981

Fox v Regina: CACD 2 Apr 2009

Notations in a personal notebook were not evidence of reprehensible conduct.
[2009] EWCA Crim 653
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPalmer, Regina v CACD 6-Dec-2016
The court considered the admission in evidence of social media messages. The defendant had been convicted of the murder of her violent boyfriend, and objected unsuccessfully to the admission of texts which she said were unduly prejudicial.
Updated: 27 April 2021; Ref: scu.468982

Regina v P and others: HL 19 Dec 2000

Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an infringement of the rights to a fair trial, nor of the right to respect for private and family life. It did not breach any rule of public policy and was not unfair under section 78. Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough said: ‘the dominant principle guiding the interpretation of the provisions of the [1985] Act was the policy of preserving the secrecy of the surveillance operations to which the Act applied and, to that end, preventing as far as possible any evidence relating to such operations ever reaching the public domain’. The interceptions had been made under the laws of that country, even though one party to the conversation had been in England. The use of an intercept could interfere with article 8.2 rights, but in this case the intercepts had been lawful obtained, and the use sought to be made of it was in accordance with the original purpose, and the intercepts had been kept for no longer than necessary for that purpose. In this case, one of other parties to the conversation was to give evidence, and this must substantially perfect any issue of unfairness. The Act 1985 Act had no application, because the interceptions had not been made under it. That question was to be judged according to the laws of the country which the interception was made.
The defendants appealed against the admission in their trials of telephone intercept evidence obtained lawfully in a foreign country, but including calls to this country. They had been admitted applying Aujla after consideration as to their fairness with section 78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The appeals were dismissed; ‘The case of Aujla was rightly decided. The decision of the ECHR in Khan shows that the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act does not invalidate in the relevant respects the decision of your Lordships’ House in that case and that s.78 is an appropriate safeguard of the fairness of the trial.’
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 19-Dec-2000, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2002] 1 AC 146, [2000] UKHL 69, [2000] UKHL 72, [2001] 2 Cr App R 8, [2001] 2 All ER 58, [2001] 2 WLR 463
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, Bailii
Interception of Communications Act 1985, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, European Convention on Human Rights 8 6
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .
CitedRegina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
CitedRegina v Singh and Others CACD 7-Nov-1997
The defendants appealed against a ruling allowing the admissipn in their trial of transcripts of telephone conversations. The results of the interception of a telephone call made abroad and in accordance with law of that country is admissible here. . .
CitedRegina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further . .
CitedMalone v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (No 2) ChD 28-Feb-1979
The court considered the lawfulness of telephone tapping. The issue arose following a trial in which the prosecution had admitted the interception of the plaintiff’s telephone conversations under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedKlass And Others v Germany ECHR 6-Sep-1978
The claimant objected to the disclosure by the police of matters revealed during their investigation, but in this case, it was held, disclosure even after the event ‘might well jeopardise the long-term purpose that originally prompted the . .
CitedAmann v Switzerland ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to interception of telephone call; Violation of Art. 8 with regard to creation and storing of information card; Preliminary objection . .
CitedKhan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .
CitedSchenk v Switzerland ECHR 12-Jul-1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
CitedSchenk v Switzerland ECHR 12-Jul-1988
The applicant had faced charges of hiring someone to kill his wife. He complained about the use of a recording of his telephone conversation with the man he hired recorded unlawfully by that man.
Held: The ECHR does not address issues about . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Francis QBD 12-Apr-1995
Justices may not hear evidence from accomplices in extradition proceedings. Also foreign intercept evidence may be used in support of extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings as such, but may be sui generis. . .
CitedRegina v Rasool, Choudhary CACD 5-Feb-1997
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to supply a controlled drug. . .
CitedTeixeira De Castro v Portugal ECHR 9-Jun-1998
Mr De Castro had been the target of an unwarranted, unauthorised, unsupervised police operation in which undercover officers incited him to supply drugs. He challenged a conviction for trafficking in heroin, based mainly on statements of two police . .
CitedRegina v Owen; Regina v Stephen CACD 11-Nov-1998
A recorded prisoner’s telephone call from prison was admissible in evidence without the defence having any right to challenge it, where the interceptor established a presumption of consent to the interception because of warnings given to prisoners. . .

Cited by:
CitedW, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.88580

Lockheed-Arabia v Owen: CA 7 Jul 1993

A photocopy of a cheque had been taken. The cheque itself was subsequently stolen. An expert gave evidence on the authenticity of the signature without having seen the original. It was held that statutory provisions were wide enough to allow the judge to give the photocopy the same status as the original for this purpose.
Gazette 07-Jul-1993
Criminal Procedure Act 1865 8
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.83146