|
©1994-2007 Kevin Boone | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Myers v DPP (1965)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
[1965] AC 1001 (HL). The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and receiving stolen goods. He had been taking stolen cars, removing their identifying marks, and passing them off as repaired insurance writeoffs. A strong part of the prosecution case was a match between the records of stolen cars, and the manufacturers records of engine numbers and other identification marks. Without the evidence showing that the cars were, indeed, stolen, there was not sufficient evidence for the prosecution to make out a case to answer. The defendant argued that the evidence of the manufacturer, so far as it was tendered to prove that the cars were stolen, was hearsay, and should not have been admitted. With great reluctance, the HouseOfLords had to agree. None of the manufacturer's staff was able to testify from memory which vehicles had particular idendification numbers, so the evidence in their documents was not first-hand. As a result, the defendant was acquited, despite the evidence against him being almost incontrovertible. Following this case, there were strong judicial calls for a radical review of the law of hearsay evidence, but no substsantial changes were made until the CriminalJusticeAct1988, which made admissible records created in the course of business.
CaseLaw CriminalLaw EvidenceLaw
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||