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

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.’

Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann
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
House of Lords, Bailii
Homicide Act 1957 3
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: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.86029

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

Regina v Pieterson; Regina v H: CACD 8 Nov 1994

The defendants appealed against their convictions for robbery. A dog had been used to follow scents from the scene, picking up items taken in the raid. The defendants objected to admission of evidence of the dog’s activities and reliability.
Held: The appeal failed. Evidence discovered after a trace by a dog might be allowed in, subject to stringent conditions, and evidence as to the dog’s training. Though the supporting evidence here had not met that standard, the deficiency was peripheral. The item found was found within a short distance from the scene of the crime, and had been identified by the victim.
‘In our judgment, if a dog handler can establish that a dog has been properly trained and that over a period of time the dog’s reactions indicate that it is a reliable pointer to the existence of a scent from a particular individual, then that evidence should properly be admitted.
However, it is important to emphasise two safeguards. First, the proper foundation must be laid by detailed evidence establishing the reliability of the dog in question. Secondly, the learned judge must, in giving his directions to the jury, alert them to the care that they need to take and to look with circumspection at the evidence of tracker dogs, having regard to the fact that the dog may not always be reliable and cannot be cross-examined.’
LCJ
Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Times 11-Nov-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 11, 93/6570/Z3, [1994] EWCA Crim 5
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Gibbins and Proctor CCA 1918
Wretched parents were accused of murder after their children starved to death. The court was asked whether they should be tried together: ‘The rule is, that it is a matter for the discretion of the judge at the trial whether two people jointly . .
Not FollowedRex v Trupedo 1920
(South Africa) Evidence concerning the activity of a tracker dog was not admissible. Innes CJ said: ‘We have no scientific or accurate knowledge as to the faculty by which dogs of certain breeds are said to be able to follow the scent of one human . .
CitedRegina v Haas 1962
(Court of Appeal of British Columbia) The court considered the admissibility of evidence derived from a tracker dog: ‘Once the qualifications of a tracking dog to follow a scent and that of his trainer to handle the dog have been established (in the . .
CitedRex v White 1926
(British Colombia) Evidence regarding a tracker dog was held inadmissible. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87547

Regina v Woodward (Terence): CACD 7 Dec 1994

On a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 1 of the 1988 Act, the fact that the driver was adversely affected by alcohol was a relevant circumstance in determining whether he was driving dangerously.’The fact (if it be so) that an accused has ingested a large quantity of alcoholic drink is a circumstance within the knowledge of the accused. Accordingly, the statute requires that ‘regard shall be had’ to it.’
Lord Taylor CJ
Times 07-Dec-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 388, [1995] 3 All ER 79, [1995] RTR 130
Road Traffic Act 1988 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v McBride 1961
Evidence that a driver had been drinking was admissible when the driver faced a charge of dangerous driving. . .

Cited by:
CitedPhipps, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The appellant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. After complaints by the injured victim’s family he was further prosecuted for dangerous driving. He now appealed his conviction, having pleaded guilty when the judge failed to find an . .
CitedWebster v Regina CACD 3-Mar-2006
The appellant challenged his conviction for aiding an abetting the causing of death by dangerous driving as a passenger. The driver had been drunk.
Held: The mere intoxication of the driver was not of itself and alone sufficient to establish . .
CitedMilton v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 16-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, saying that his special skills as a trained police driver should have been allowed for. He had driven on a motorway at average speeds of 148mph.
Held: His appeal was allowed. The . .
CitedBannister, Regina v CACD 28-Jul-2009
The defendant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving. As a police officer he had driven at over 110 mph on a motorway in the wet, lost control and crashed. He said that the fact that he had undertaken the police advanced drivers’ course . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88345

Regina v Wren: CACD 13 Jul 1993

The defendant was accused of indecent assault. He said that the complainant had consented.
Held: It was necessary for the jury to consider whether the appellant might honestly have believed that the complainant was consenting because that was an issue that arose from the facts. The judge has a duty to direct the jury on each issue to be considered by them, and to clear up the slightest doubts about issues before the closing speeches.
Times 13-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 09-Aug-1993, [1993] CLR 952
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedH, Regina v CACD 25-Apr-2006
The defendant youth appealed his conviction and sentence for rape by oral penetration of a six or seven year old boy. He complained that the evidence contained such inconsistences that the case should not have proceeded. Complaint was also made that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88351

Regina v Skinner: CACD 6 Dec 1993

Witnesses should not rehearse their evidence together before going into court. Farquharson LJ said: ‘It has certainly been permissible, since Lord Goddard’s time, for officers to confer together in the making up of their notebooks immediately after the events or interviews in which they have both been participating, as an aid to memory. That is shown by [Bass].’
Farquharson LJ
Ind Summary 06-Dec-1993, [1994] 99 CAR 212
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Bass CCA 1953
The court considered how to deal with the admission of a statement where the defendant contested its admissibility. Here the defendant said he had not been cautioned before the interview.
Held: It was within the discretion of the judge to . .

Cited by:
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 . .
CitedSaunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88038

Regina v Smurthwaite; Regina v Gill: CACD 5 Oct 1993

It is not a defence merely to show that there had been entrapment or the use of an agent provocateur, but the Judge has a discretion to exclude the evidence obtained if it would be unfair to use it. The need is to ensure a fair trial.
Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Ind Summary 11-Oct-1993, Times 05-Oct-1993, [1994] 98 Cr App R 437
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Mulkerrins and Sansom CACD 20-Jun-1997
The defendant appealed sentences for importing 795 kgs of cocaine, with a street value of approximately pounds 125 million.
Held: There was evidence of others involved at a level even higher than the two appellants, but both appellants had . .
CitedRegina v Shannon (Also Known As Alford) CACD 11-Oct-2000
The defendant had been enticed to commit a crime involving supply of controlled drugs by a journalist acting as an agent provocateur.
Held: Entrapment is not a defence in UK law. It was open to the judge hearing the prosecution to exclude the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88058

Regina v Taylor-Sabori: CACD 25 Sep 1998

An intercept of a pager message between its transmission from the local land station to the pager was not unlawful. Such communications are not protected by a provision restricting interception of messages emanating from abroad.
Henry LJ, Sir Patrick Russell, Beaumont QC J
Times 12-Oct-1998, Gazette 14-Oct-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 858, [1998] EWCA Crim 2668
Bailii
Interception of Communications Act 1985 10(2)
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88162

Regina v Preston and Others: CACD 17 Jun 1992

Evidence from telephone taps cannot be obtained for prosecution, and were inadmissible in court having been obtained unfairly.
Gazette 17-Jun-1992
Interception of Communications Act 1985 9, 2-2-b
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87575

Regina v Morris: CACD 25 Oct 1994

The otherwise unexplained or unexplainable possession of large amounts of cash can be admissible as evidence of drug dealing.
Independent 25-Oct-1994, Times 20-Oct-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPayton, Regina v CACD 26-May-2006
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87390

Regina v Nicholson (Andrew Robert): CACD 8 Sep 1999

Where in an assault case, the complainant did not assert that she would be able to identify the defendant, a defendant seeking an identity parade merely for the purpose of establishing what was admitted, could not oblige a parade to be called. The prosecution had proceeded on the basis of other evidence, and placed no reliance upon a general description given by the complainant.
Gazette 08-Sep-1999
Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice 1996 D:2.3
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.87439

Regina v Hook: CACD 11 Nov 1994

The defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by deception. He said the judge should have excluded evidence of allegations of six other similar offences, even though his counsel had not objected at the time.
Held: The judge has a duty himself to challenge evidence if it is clearly not admissible. It would be a misdirection to fail to do so. However that duty did not apply where, as here, there were possibly sustainable arguments for its inclusion. An appeal was not to be used generally to take up points which counsel might have raised at trial.
Glidewell LJ, French J, Buckley J
Times 11-Nov-1994
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86880

Regina v Fitzpatrick (Gerald): CACD 19 Feb 1999

The direction to the jury about the value of expert evidence need not be followed slavishly. A jury should know that they were not necessarily bound by an expert’s opinion, but there is no inflexible requirement as to the wording to be used.
Times 19-Feb-1999
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Stockwell CA 5-Apr-1993
Expert evidence of facial comparison was admissible if the information and assessment are not otherwise available to the jury. As to Turner: ‘It is to be noted that Lawton LJ there referred to a jury forming their own conclusions ‘without help’. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86666

Regina v Cooke (Stephen): CACD 10 Aug 1994

A sample of hair taken without the suspect’s consent was not an intimate sample, and did not require the associated permissions and procedures. Evidence derived from such a sample was accordingly admissible in evidence.
Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994, Times 10-Aug-1994, Gazette 07-Oct-1994
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 65
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86435

Regina v Cain: CACD 1 Nov 1993

Three defendants faced the jury. One with and two without a good character. The criminal convictions of the second were made known by her to the jury. The first defendant now appealed complaining at the way the judge had given his directions.
Held: The appeal failed. Where different defendants had different records each was entitled to the benefit of whatever direction was appropriate to his or her case. Though the judge had failed to give appropriate directions in this case no significant harm had followed.
Ind Summary 01-Nov-1993, [1994] 2 All ER 398
England and Wales
Citing:
ConsideredRegina v Vye etc CACD 7-Apr-1993
Detailed guidance was given on good character directions, as to how and when they should be given, but: ‘Provided that the judge indicates to the jury the two respects in which good character may be relevant, ie credibility and propensity, this . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.86264

Regina v M and Others: CACD 2 Sep 1999

Evidence of the proper background to the offence was normally admissible, even if this revealed previous offences by the defendant, and despite the fact that such offences might not be admissible on a similar fact basis. Where the jury could not obtain a proper understanding of the case without such material it should be admitted. ‘It is apparent that the judgment in Percival was directed to the summing-up in that particular case. We find in the judgment no attempt by the Court to lay down principles of general application in relation to how judges should sum up in cases of delay and we accordingly would wish to discourage the attempts being made, with apparently increasing frequency, in applications and appeals to this Court to rely on Percival as affording some sort of blueprint for summings-up in cases of delay. It affords no such blueprint. Indeed in this area, as in so many others, prescription by this Court as to the precise terms of a summing-up is best avoided. Trial judges should tailor their directions to the circumstances of the particular case. In a case where there have been many years of delay between the alleged offences and trial, a clear warning will usually be desirable as to the impact which this may have had on the memories of witnesses, and as to the difficulties, which may have resulted for the defence. The precise terms of that warning and its relationship to the burden and standard of proof can be left to the good sense of trial judges with appropriate help and guidance from the Judicial Studies Board.’
Rose LJ
Times 02-Sep-1999, [2000] 1 Crim App R 49
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Pettman CACD 2-May-1985
Background evidence is admissible ‘Where it is necessary to place before the jury evidence of part of a continual background of history relevant to the offence charged in the indictment and without the totality of which the account placed before the . .
CitedRegina v Percival CACD 19-Jun-1998
There was an additional burden on a judge in a case involving very old allegations of sexual abuse to use his imprimatur to emphasise to the jury the additional difficulties faced by a defendant and the high burden of proof. . .

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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85383

Regina v Nicholson (Andrew Robert): CACD 2 Sep 1999

Where in an assault case, the complainant did not assert that she would be able to identify the defendant, a defendant seeking an identity parade merely for the purpose of establishing what was admitted, could not oblige a parade to be called. The prosecution had proceeded on the basis of other evidence, and placed no reliance upon a general description given by the complainant.
Times 02-Sep-1999
Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice 1996 D:2.3
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85428

Regina v Owen; R v Stephen: CACD 10 Dec 1998

A recorded prisoner’s telephone call from prison was admissible in evidence without the defence having any right to challenge where the interceptor established a presumption of consent to the interception because of warnings given to prisoners.
Gazette 10-Dec-1998
Interception of Communications Act 1985 9
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85439

Regina v Popat (No 2): CACD 2 Sep 1999

The case of R v Popat had not been overruled by R v Forbes, which had been decided unfortunately. The obligation to hold an identity parade was not absolute. There are other factors which can be relied upon to make the obligation indeterminate.
Times 02-Sep-1999
Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice 1996 D:2.3
England and Wales
Citing:
Renewed appealRegina v Popat CACD 23-Mar-1998
Though an identification parade should be held whenever it would serve a useful purpose, where the evidence of identification by a witness was already complete and satisfactory there was no continuing obligation on the police to provide an . .

Cited by:
See alsoRegina v Popat CACD 23-Mar-1998
Though an identification parade should be held whenever it would serve a useful purpose, where the evidence of identification by a witness was already complete and satisfactory there was no continuing obligation on the police to provide an . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85446

Regina v Roberts: CACD 14 Sep 1999

Where it became clear during a trial that a witness’ identification of the defendant was based rather on voice than visual memory, counsel for prosecution and defence should have been given opportunity to consider this and make representation, with the trial being stopped if necessary. Research suggests that identification from voice is less reliable even than visual identification.
Times 14-Sep-1999
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85463

Regina v Ryan: CACD 13 Oct 1999

There has been some confusion about the need for identity parades to be held where requested by the defendant. Where the witness had properly identified the defendant such a parade need not be held. The decision in R v Popat was to be preferred to that in R v Forbes.
Times 13-Oct-1999
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85468

Regina v Derodara: CACD 16 Jul 1999

The maker of a statement need not be the person who creates a statement. It may be the person on whose behalf the statements are asserted as true is the maker. Here a police report based on the defendant’s false statements as to the date of a burglary were admitted as evidence in a case alleging a false declaration as part of an obtaining of a pecuniary advantage by deception.
Times 16-Jul-1999
Theft Act 1968 16(1) 23 24
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85223

Regina v Doldur: CACD 7 Dec 1999

A jury cannot convict solely on the basis of an inference, drawn under section 34, from the combination of an accused’s failure to give at interview, an explanation relied upon later at court. Additional evidence could be found not only from the prosecution case, but also from the defence. In a section 35 case however, the jury must only draw upon the prosecution case for such a basis.
Times 07-Dec-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85238

Regina v K (Corroboration): CACD 16 Jul 1999

The mother had drawn an allegation from her daughter by questioning.
Held: Where a child’s complaint in a sex abuse case may have been elicited by the mother, the court should make clear to the jury the danger of treating the mother’s evidence as corroborative of the child’s, and also as to the danger arising from the susceptibility to suggestion in such a child. The convictions in this case were unsafe.
Gage J
Times 16-Jul-1999
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.85335

Regina v Land: CACD 10 Oct 1997

No expert medical evidence is needed with regard to the age of a child said to be the subject of an indecent photograph. Whether it is a child is not outside normal experience. The defendant had seen the photographs, and no defence was available under 1(4)(b).
Gazette 05-Nov-1997, Times 04-Nov-1997, [1999] QB 65, [1997] EWCA Crim 2409, [1998] 1 Cr App R 301
Bailii
Protection of Children Act 1978 1(1)(c)
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedRegina v Collier CACD 11-Jun-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of indecent pseudo-photographs of children. He said that he had not seen the image, and that though he had reason to know the images were indecent, he had no reason to know that they were of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2021; Ref: scu.87116

Regina v Morris: CACD 22 Oct 1997

An allegation of assault occasioning bodily harm, where the harm alleged was of a purely psychological nature, must be supported by psychiatric evidence.
Potter LJ, Foster, Ebsworth JJ
Times 13-Nov-1997, Gazette 12-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 2564
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Chan-Fook CACD 15-Nov-1993
‘Actual bodily harm’ under the 1861 Act, may include injury to any part of the body, including internal organs, the nervous system and the brain. It is capable of including psychiatric injury, but not mere emotion such as fear, distress or . .
CitedRegina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 March 2021; Ref: scu.87388

Regina v Hussain, Khan: CACD 20 Jan 1997

The defendants appealed convictions for importing drugs. They chose not to give evidence. At one point, in the presence of the jury, the judge spoke to counsel about warning the defendants of the ‘potential’ inferences, but the defendants had been arraigned before the new rules had come into effect. He acknowledged his mistake, and later addressed the jury in proper terms about the failure to give evidence.
Held: That was sufficient to correct the error.
The defendants had also complained at the admission of evidence derived from telephone intercepts. The court was satisfied that the guidelines had been observed, and additionally that the judge was right to admit the evidence.
[1997] EWCA Crim 107
Telecommunication Act 1985, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.149562

Regina v Foxley: CACD 9 Feb 1995

Written statements can be admissible at trial with the protections given by the section without being supported by oral evidence. An inference of the personal knowledge of the maker of statement is permissible.
Ind Summary 03-Apr-1995, Times 09-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 523
Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1)(ii)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedVehicle and Operator Services Agency v George Jenkins Transport Ltd Admn 20-Nov-2003
The prosecutor Agency appealed by way of case stated against a decision refusing to allow them to admit documentary evidence.
Held: The appeal was dismissed, but the court took the opportunity to say that a case stated did not need as in this . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.88460

Regina v Major Sandhu: CACD 10 Dec 1996

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for infringements of the 1990 Act. The house was already very severly dilapidated when it came to be listed. He was accused of making changes outside the extent of the listed buildings consent he had obtained.
Held: The offence was one of strict liability, and guilt did not depend upon any mens rea. However the prosecution had added evidence that the defendant intended to break the regulations. He had complained that this evidence was not intending to prove any necessary part of the offence and was merely prejudicial. The judge’s reasoning was unsound. Evidence which went to prove elements beyond the necessary elements of the offence and which was prejudicial was not admissible.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Sachs, Toulson JJ
Times 02-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Crim 1677, [1998] 1 PLR 17
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 7 9, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedEast Riding of Yorkshire Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Hobson Admn 18-Apr-2008
The authority appealed by case stated from the dismissal of its complaints that the defendant had altered a listed building. He had been given permission to carry out certain works, but had in effect demolished and rebuilt the property.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.87670

Regina v Saunders and Others: CACD 28 Nov 1995

The absence of the protection of a rule against self-incrimination under the company law questioning procedure, didn’t make the use an admission in criminal proceedings unfair. DTI Inspectors may continue their inquiries after it has become clear that offences have been committed provided the caution is given.
Independent 28-Nov-1995, Times 28-Nov-1995, Gazette 15-Dec-1995
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.87673

Regina v Rankin: CACD 5 Sep 1995

The Court of Appeal was not to overturn a Judge’s decision with regard to identification evidence in the absence of any lurking doubt. The admission of evidence goes only to fairness within trial, not unreliability.
Ind Summary 09-Oct-1995, Times 05-Sep-1995
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.87595

Regina v Makanjuola: CACD 17 May 1995

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

Regina v H (Evidence: Corroboration); Regina v Hepburn: CACD 2 Mar 1994

The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assault on his daughter and stepdaughter. The prosecution relied upon the allegatins as similar fact evidence. The complainants denied collaboration and concoction.
Held: The jury should decide first if the complainants have colluded before being asked to assess whether their accounts were corroboration for each other. Nevertheless the appeal failed. The assessment of the reliability of the witnesses, was essentially one for the jury not the judge, and he had been correct to leave the question to the jury.
Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 02-Mar-1994, Independent 25-Feb-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 809
England and Wales
Citing:
FollowedRegina v Johanssen CACD 1978
. .
Not FollowedRegina v Ananthanarayanan CACD 11-Mar-1993
The defendant appealed against his conviction for indecent assault. He complained that the judge had in effect left to the jury the question of whether the evidence of the two accusers was contaminated.
Held: His appeal succeeded. It was for . .
FollowedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Hester CACD 1972
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v H (Evidence: Corroboration) HL 25-May-1995
The fact that there may have been a possibility of collusion is not sufficient to stop the admission of similar fact evidence by way of corroboration. ‘ . . the function of the trial judge is not to decide as an intellectual process whether the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86784

Regina v Dragic: CACD 7 Mar 1996

Written evidence of a severely and chronically ill witness who was unable to attend and give oral evidence was rightly admitted. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The fact that there is no ability to cross-examine, that the witness who is absent is the only evidence against the accused and that his evidence is identification evidence is not sufficient to render the admission of written evidence from that witness contrary to the interests of justice or unfair to the defendant per se. What matters in our judgment, is the content of the statement and the circumstances of the particular case.’
Lord Taylor CJ
Times 07-Mar-1996, (1996) 2 CAR 232
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86581

Regina v E (Sexual Abuse: Delay): CACD 6 Jul 1995

There are no fixed rules for the form of or need for warnings to be given as regards the prejudice to a defendant in sex abuse cases where there has been a long delay after the events complained of. It was a matter for the judge in each case.
Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995, Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995
England and Wales

Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86601

Regina v Clarke: CACD 30 Jan 1995

There were no special rules for the admission of evidence by computerised facial mapping. The ultimate gatekeepers on the admission of evidence of previous convictions are the rules on similar fact evidence.
Ind Summary 30-Jan-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 420
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Hersey CACD 1-Dec-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery, which had been based in part on witnesses identifying his voice. Particular concern was raised where a series of recordings had been brought together from which the witness had been asked to . .
CitedRegina v Shanks CACD 19-Mar-2003
The appellant appealed his conviction for murder. He had shot his lover as she walked away from an argument. The fact of his conviction following mention of a guilty plea to possession of the firearm was complained of.
Held: The judge had . .
CitedAtkins and Another v Regina CACD 2-Oct-2009
The court considered the use in evidence of facial photograph comparison techniques. The expert had given an opinion that the comparison gave support to a conclusion that the photograph in issue was of the defendant, but there was no database . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86392

Regina v Clare, Regina v Peach: CACD 7 Apr 1995

A Police Constable’s very detailed analysis of video evidence in a case made him an ad hoc expert on it.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The phrase ‘expert ad hoc’ seeks to put witnesses like Detective Parsons and PC Fitzpatrick into the traditional category of those qualified to give expert opinion. Whether or not the tag is appropriate, we are clearly of the view that PC Fitzpatrick had ‘special knowledge that the Court did not possess’ . . PC Fitzpatrick had acquired the knowledge by lengthy and studious application to material which was itself admissible evidence. To afford the jury the time and facilities to conduct the same research would be utterly impracticable. Accordingly, it was in our judgment legitimate to allow the officer to assist the jury by pointing to what he asserted was happening in the crowded scenes on the film. He was open to cross-examination, and the jury, after proper direction and warnings, were free either to accept or reject his assertions.’
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ
Independent 07-Apr-1995, Times 07-Apr-1995, Gazette 03-May-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 333
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAttorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) CACD 7-Oct-2002
The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86386

Regina 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 as a result of provocation. It is incumbent on the defence to at least raise some evidence of provocation before the trial judge is obliged to deal with this issue in his summing up.
Lord Justice Hirst, Mr Justice Rougier and Mr Justice Mitchell
Times 05-Apr-1996, [1997] 2 Cr App R 94
Homicide Act 1957 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86031

Regina v Adams: CACD 26 Apr 1996

The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape. There had been a DNA match, but the defendant did not match the description given by the victim, and she had not picked him out. He argued that DNA evidence alone should not be used to convict, and that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the use of statistical evidence. The court considered how DNA evidence might be presented to a jury.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a decision was to follow as to a retrial.
The use of statistical theory in support of a case is to be discouraged in criminal trials: ‘To introduce Bayes Theorem, or any similar method, into a criminal trial plunges the Jury into inappropriate and unnecessary realms of theory and complexity deflecting them from their proper task.’
The court considered the error of seeking to use probability in a criminal court. Rose LJ said: ‘More fundamentally, however, the attempt to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of a mathematical formula, applied to each separate piece of evidence, is simply inappropriate to the jury’s task. Jurors evaluate evidence and reach a conclusion not by means of a formula, mathematical or otherwise, but by the joint application of their individual common sense and knowledge of the world to the evidence before them. It is common for them to have to evaluate scientific evidence, both as to its quality and as to its relationship with other evidence. Scientific evidence tendered as proof of a particular fact may establish that fact to an extent which, in any particular case, may vary between slight possibility and virtual certainty. For example, different blood spots on an accused’s clothing may, on testing, reveal a range of conclusions from ‘human blood’ via ‘possibly the victim’s blood’ to ‘highly likely to be the victim’s blood’. Such evidence is susceptible to challenge as to methodology and otherwise, which may weaken or even, in some cases, strengthen the impact of the evidence. But we have never heard it suggested that a jury should consider the relationship between such scientific evidence and other evidence by reference to probability formulas. That such a course would in any event be impossible of sensible achievement by a jury, at least so far as the use of the Bayes theorem is concerned, is demonstrated by the practical application of the stage of that theorem’s methodology that involves numerical assessment of the various items of evidence. Individual jurors might differ greatly not only according to how cogent they found a particular piece of evidence (which would be a matter for discussion and debate between the jury as a whole), but also on the question of what percentage figure for probability should be placed on that evidence. Since, as we have pointed out, the translation of an assessment of cogency into a percentage probability of guilt is entirely a matter of judgment and the conferring of a percentage probability of guilt upon one item of evidence taken in isolation is an essentially artificial operation, different jurors might well wish to select different numerical figures even when they were broadly agreed on the weight of the evidence in question. They could, presumably, only resolve any such difference by taking an average, which would truly reflect neither party’s view; and this point leaves aside the even greater difficulty of how twelve jurors, applying Bayes as a single jury, are to reconcile, under the mathematics of that formula, differing individual views about the cogency of particular pieces of evidence. ‘
Rose, Hidden, Buxton LJJ
Times 09-May-1996, [1996] EWCA Crim 222, [1996] 2 Cr App R 467, [1996] Crim LR 898, [1996] 2 Cr App Rep 467
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Doheny, Adams CACD 31-Jul-1996
The court set out the procedure for the introduction of DNA evidence in criminal trials. In particular the court explained the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy’ when using statistical evidence. The significance of the DNA evidence will depend critically upon . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86032

Regina v B (Evidence: Propensity): CACD 27 Jan 1997

The defendant appealed his conviction for indecent assaults, denying that any assaults had taken place. He complained that the judge had allowed questioning about his sexual propensities.
Held: Propensity to acts is not admissible as evidence supporting charge of doing them.
Rose LJ, Dyson J Timothy Walker J
Times 19-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 207
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
CitedRegina v A S CACD 20-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed against convictions for several sexual offences. The alleged victim had originally denied that any offending had taken place. The defendant denied that anything had happened. He complained now that the court had accepted in . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86079

Regina v Barnes (Anthony): CACD 6 Jul 1995

Identification evidence from separate complainants was properly to be accumulated together if one offender was known in sexual assault cases if one person was claimed to be responsible for all the attacks, and the jury was satisfied that it was a series of assaults.
Gazette 31-Aug-1995, Ind Summary 14-Aug-1995, Times 06-Jul-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 491
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Brown, Wilson, Mcmillan and McClean CACD 31-Jul-1996
Identification on one set of offences was said to be less than sufficient on its own to secure a conviction. Further identification evidence bound the defendants to a related offence. The judge brought them together, and the defence appealed saying . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 March 2021; Ref: scu.86094