| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
| Case | Issue | Proposition | | ChandrasekeraVR1937 | Whether conduct can amount to hearsay evidence | Insofar as the conduct constitutes a `verbal statement', it must be considered hearsay | | DPPVBoardman1975 | Whether multiple allegations of misconduct were cross-admissible against multiple indictments under the `similar fact' principle | Yes, provided that the probative value of such evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect | | DPPVP1991 | Whether mutliple allegations required conform to the `striking similarity' principles in order to be cross-admissible between indictments | No, provided that on balance the probative value exceeded the prejudicial effect of this evidence | | HoskynVMPC1979 | Whether wife a CompellableWitness against husband | No, despite the general principle that a CompetentWitness is compellable | | JonesVMetcalfe1967 | Whether registration number dictated by witness to road accident could be used to identify the vehicle during trial | Reluctantly, no; the witness did not verify the number dictated, so could not refresh his memory from it; the police officer could not report it as it was hearsay | | KhanVUnitedKingdom1998 | Whether using covertly-obtained tape recordings as evidence amounts to a breach of Art. 6 | No, it is for the national courts to determine what sort of evidence is admissible (but see Teixeira de Castro) | | MakinVAGForNewSouthWales1894 | Whether evidence of dead bodies in defendants' garden was admissible to show that the defendant had a disposition to commit the murder charged | Yes -- an issue relevant to the case was not to be excluded simply because it showed a criminal past | | MyersVDPP1965 | Whether reliable evidence in a document can amount to hearsay | Yes, according to established principles even perfectly trustworthy documentary evidence if hearsay if offered to prove its contents | | OwenVEdwards1983 | Whether defence could cross-examine police witness on the contents of his notebook | Yes, but if the cross-examination was extensive the whole notebook would be put in evidence | | Rex v Acaster (1912) | Whether wife should warned of right not to testify against husband | Yes -- non-compellable witness should be warned beforere taking the oath | | RVA2001 | Whether exclusion of evidence of previous sexual history under s.41 of the YJCEA1999 could amount to a breach of Art. 6 | In principle, yes; trial judges should make use of their powers under s.3 of the HRA1998 to read down the provisions of s.41 | | RVAbsalam1989 | | For confession to be excluded under s.78 PACE, breach of Codes must be substantial and significant | | RVAlladice1988 | Whether confession should be excluded if made before legal advice | In general yes, in this case no -- the defendant was a seasoned crook and well aware of his rights | | RVArgent1997 | | In deciding whehter s.34 inferences to be drawn, `reasonable' must be interpreted with respect to the defendant and the circumstances | | RVAndrews1978 || House of Lords approved direction in Ratten| | RVAziz1995 | Whether VyeDirection must always be given if the defendant has no convictions | No, not if to do so would be an affront to common sense | | RVBernadotti1869 | Whether a dying declaration was admissible if the victim died some time after the injury | Yes, so long as the victim harboured no hope of recovery | | RVBishop1975 | Whether an accusation of homosexuality could amount to an ``imputation'' against a witness's character in a criminal trial | Yes (at least in 1975) | | RVBlastland1986 | Whether D should be allowed to adduce evidence that another person had unusually detailed knowledge of the murder alleged to be committed by D | Even when evidence escapes exclusion on the basis of hearsay, it must still be logically relevant | | RVBowden1999 | | s.34 CJPOA encroaches on a fundamental right and should not be construed more widely that the statutory language requires; indicating reasons for silence on lawyer's advice may waive lawyer-client privilege | | RVBryce1992 | Whether recording of conversation between suspect and undercover policeman ought to be excluded under s.78 | In this case yes, as the conversation was about a key point in issue in the case, and should have been conducted under caution | | RVBungeAndPeg1996 | | LucasDirection should be given where (i) prosection alleges that defendant lied about his alibi; (ii) where it is alleged that the defendant lied about a matter which corroborates some other evidence; (iii) where the prosecution are inviting the jury to consider the defendant's lies as implying his guilt; (iv) when there is a real risk that the jury might make this inference, even without encouragement | | RVButterwasser1940 | whether by attacking the character of prosecution witnesses the defendant was putting his good character in issue | No -- their bad character is not his good character (the CJA2003 will overturn this rule of law | | RVChalkley1998 | Whether covert evidence obtained by trespass and in breach of Art. 9 of the ECHR could be excluded under s.78 | No -- the discretion under s.78 does not significantly expand the common-law discretion to exclude relevant evidence | | RVCanale1990 | Whether police failure to record interviews allows confession to be excluded under s.76(2) | Yes -- this is a flagrant and cynical breach of the Codes of Practice | | RVClifton1986 | | TurnbullDirection should expose weaknesses in the prosecution's identification evidence | | RVCook1982 | Whether photofit picture admissible when tendered by witness making identification during oral testimony | Yes; photofits (and photographs) are a class of evidence apart, and not subject to the RuleAgainstNarrative | | RVDaSilver1999 | Whether witness could refer to a non-contemporaneous note while giving evidence | Yes, provided that witness's inability to recall was due to lapse of time, and he had made the note nearer the events (but see ex parte B) | | RVDerbyMagistratesExParteB1995 | | LawyerClientPrivilege is absolute, and cannot be overriden even when upholding it is unjust | | RVDowney1995 | Similar fact evidence of identification on different counts could be applied cumulatively (despite McGranaghan) when the offences are tightly interwoven | | RVDuncan1981 || Where a MixedStatement is admitted, the judge has a discretion to warn the jury that the inculpatory elements have more weight | | RVEdwards1975 | Whether burden of proving possession of a driving licence lay on the defendant driver | Yes, even though this amounted to a reversed burden of proof -- possession would not be difficult to prove, and it was very much in the interest of society that offenders be prosecuted | | RVFlint2005 | Whether pornographic photos and videos made by the complainant in a sexual abuse trial were to be excluded under s.41 of the YJCEA1999 | Having decided that the interest of justice required questioning the complainant on her previous sexual behaviour, it was `artificial' to exclude the photographic evidence | | RVForbes2001 | Whether identification evidence obtained without mandatory identification parade should be excluded under s.78 | Yes -- the language of the particular Code provision was mandatory because breach of this provision would make the evidence highly unreliable | | RVFulling1987 | Whether unpleasant deception amounted to `oppression' for purposes of PACE s.76 | No -- `oppression' has its ordinary meaning: the `exercise of power in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful way' | | RVGill2001 | | s.34 only engaged if the jury find that the prosecution has made out a case to answer | | RVGoldberg1988 | Whether confession of heroin addict in withdrawal should be excluded on PACE s.76 | No -- the unreliability did not follow from `anything said or done' by the police (but see RVMcGovern1990) | | RVGowlandWynn2001 | | s.34 allows inference to be drawn from silence, even on a matter crucial to the defendant's case | | RVGrant1996 | Whether presence of large some of money was relevant evidence in a charge of possesion of drugs with intent to supply | Yes, but the jury must be carefully directed not to treat it as evidence of propensity | | RVGunewardene1951 | | Where confession by X would have the effect of implicating Y, jury must be warned no to take into account the evidence against Y | | RVH1995 | Whether the possibility of collusion must be taken into account in determining cross-admissibility of evidence between mutliple indictments | No -- whether the evidence is to be believed is a question for the jury | | RVHalpin1996 | Evidence of a lavish lifestyle will rarely be relevant in trials for possession of drugs with intent to supply | | RVHayes1976 | Whether 11 and 12-year-old children should have been allowed to give SwornEvidence | The relevant test is whether the witness understands the significance of the oath and the duty to tell the truth | | RVHunt1987 | Whether burden of proving a controlled drug was in a particular form was on the defendant or the prosecution | The form of the drug was one of the elements of the offence, and therefore fell to be proved by the prosecution; but there were circumstances in which it was reasonable to impose the burden on the defendant | | RVIslam1999 | | Jury must be directed that evidence of RecentComplaint goes only to credibility, not to the facts stated | | RVJenkins1869 | Whether dying declaration is admissible where the death of the victim was not inevitable | No -- the rationale for admitting such declarations would be defeated if the victim harboured even a slight hope of recovery | | RVJohnW1998 | There are no special rules for admissibility of similar fact evidence of identification, beyond those that apply to similar fact evidence generally | | RVKelly1998 | Whether identification evidence obtained in breach of Code D should be excluded under s.78 PACE | Breaches of Code D had the potential to render the evidence inadmissible, but exclusion would depend on the nature of the breach, and would not be automatic | | RVLeatham1861 | Whether evidence obtained improperly is inadmissible | No, even if the evidence is obtained illegally, it does not lose its admissibility | | RVLewis1982 | Whether membership of a paedophile organization was admissible in trial for sexual offences against children | Yes, to the extent that the evidence rebutted the defence of `innocent explanation' | | RVLoosely2000 | Whether evidence obtained by entrapment was admissible | In general such evidence is admissible but, even where s.78 PACE is not relevant, the courts retain the power to stay proceedings for an abuse of process if the entrapment amounts to `state-created crime' | | RVMcGarry1999 | If defendant maintains silence from start to finish, jury should be directed not to draw adverse inferences -- s.34 of the CJPOA is not enaged | | RVMcGovern1990 | Whether confession of pregnant, sick woman should be excluded on PACE s.76 | Yes, despite that the unreliability did not follow from `anything said or done' by police (but see RVGoldberg1988) | | RVMcGranaghan1995 | | `Similar fact' evidence of identification on different counts could only be applied `sequentially'; that is, the jury should be satisifed that the defendant was guilty one count one, before using the similar fact evidence to assess count two (but see R v Downey) | | RVMH2002 | Whether complainant's allegations of sexual offences against men other than the defendant in a rape trial are admissible | Yes, making allegations does not amount to `sexual behaviour' s.41 of the YJCEA1999 | | RVNickolson1998 | Whether statement made by defendant in response to cross-examination on police finding of which he was unaware amounts to `relying on' `a fact' for the purposes of s.34 CJPOA | No, the defendant was never questioned on this finding, and therefore could not be expected to mention it | | RVOsbourne1905 | Whether evidence of RecentComplaint admissible if the complaint was made in response to a question | Yes, so long as it was not a leading or intimidating question | | RVOShea1993 | Whether defendant with twenty-year-old convictions was a person of good character for the purposes of trial for a drugs offence | No, because -- in the words of the judge -- this would 'mislead the jury' | | RVOyesiku1972 | Whether previous statement by witness to solicitor could be admitted to rebut allegation that her testimony was fabricated | Yes, so long as the statement rebuts a specific allegation, not a general accusation of untruthfulness | | RVPark1994 | Whether discretion to exclude under s.78 PACE extends to interview without caution | In principle yes, if there is a breach of Code C (but not in this case) | | RVPieterson1995 | | Identification by tracker dog is admissible evidence | | RVPitt1982 | Whether a non-compellable witness can be treated as hostile if you gives evidence inconsistent with a previous statement | Yes, but it would be better for a court to give an AcasterWarning to a person who plans to testify against his or her spouse | | RVRoble1996 | | To assess whether adverse inferences could be drawn from defendant's refusal to answer questions on the advice of his solicitor, a jury was entitled to know what justification the solicitor gave for offering this advice | | RVSouthRibbleMagistratesCourtExParteCochrane1996 | | The discretion of a trial judge to allow a witness to refresh his memory from a written note should rarely be interfered with on appeal | | RVSmurthwaite1994 | Whether evidence obtained by undercover policeman posing as a contract killer should be excluded on the basis of entrapment | No, as the police did not encourage the crime; but exclusion might be possible if the police took a more active role | | RVStorey1968 | | A previous ExculpatoryStatement or MixedStatement is admissible even if consistent with the witness's oral testimony, but only to credibility, not to fact | | RVStraffen1952 | Whether previous murders could be adduced as evidence against defendant in murder trial | In general, evidence of previous crimes was not admissible; but where the crimes had been committed in a ``peculiar and distinctive way'' it would be | | RVRichardson1971 | Whether evidence of witness who had read from his notes before taking the stand was admissible | Yes -- as a matter of common sense any rule against such a practice would be unenforceable | | RVRoberts1942 || PreviousConsistentStatement not admissible to support the credibility of testimony | | RvTimsonAndHales1993 | Whether defendant with five-year old drunk driving conviction was a person of good character for the purposes of a trial for deception | Yes, although whether accused is entitled to a VyeDirection is generally a matter of judicial discretion | | RVThompson1976 | | HostileWitness may be examined on his previous inconsistent statements | | RVValentine1996 | Whether RecentComplaint admissible if the complaint was not to the first person encountered | Yes; it is necessary that the complaint be within a reasonable time, but not necessarily to a complete stranger | | RVVarley1982 | Whether a mere denial of involvment in an offence amounts to giving evidence against a co-defendant | Yes, if the effect of the denial, if believed, would be that the jury conclude that the co-defendant is guilty | | RVViola1982 | Whether court has a discretion under s.2 of the Sexual Offences (Ammendment) Act (1976) to exclude evidence of the complainant's relations with other men | No -- if the evidence would cause the jury to change their views then it was relevant, and could not be excluded | | RVVirgo1978 | Whether evidence elicited from cross-examination on a previous statement is admissible as to its facts | No, only as to the credibility of the witness (but this may be different under the CJA 2003) | | RVWalsh1989 | | Bad faith on the part of the police is a central factor in deciding whether to exclude evidence under s.78 | | RVWoodcock1789 | Whether witness could adduce evidence of a statement made by a murder victim, identifying his assailant before he died | Yes -- although this is hearsay, a person would not want his last words to be a lie | | TeixeiraDeCastroVPortual1999 | Whether use of evidence obtained by entrapment contravenes Art. 6 | Yes -- fairness must not be sacrificed for expediency | | ThongjaiVR1998 | | When defendant retracts or denies a confession, whether it is admissible is a matter of law, not of fact, to be determined on the voir dire. Whether it is true_ is a matter for the jury | | RVZ2000 | Whether evidence of behaviour in previous rape charges for which the defendant was acquited could be used as `similar fact' evidence in a later rape trial | Yes -- that evidence tends to cast doubt on an acquital does not automatically make it inadmissible, provided that it does not subject the defendant to double jeopardy |
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |