The Crown appealed against a ruling that the court would not admit a written statement of a defendant from a related trial implicating the defendant.
Held: A Court of Appeal will only interfere with a ruling under the Act if the ruling falls outside the range of reasonable decisions at which the judge could properly have arrived, or if the judge has applied the wrong principles.
Judges:
Hughes LJ, Saunders J, Sir Christopher Holland
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 10, [2008] Crim LR 466, [2008] 2 All ER 484, [2008] 1 Cr App R 34, [2008] 1 WLR 1683,
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 114(1)(d)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Horncastle and Others, Regina v SC 9-Dec-2009
Each defendant said they had not received a fair trial in that the court had admitted written evidence of a witness he had not been allowed to challenge. The witnesses had been victims, two of whom had died before trial. It was suggested that the . .
Cited – Regina v Twist and Others CACD 12-May-2011
The court considered the application of the 2003 Act to communications made to, or by, the defendant, and in particular text messages sent by mobile telephone.
Held: The four appeals against conviction were dismissed. Singh established that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263875
