Regina v Miller  EWCA Crim 1153;  WLR (D) 142
“In criminal proceedings, the circumstances in which one party would be permitted pursuant to s 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ask a witness a question in cross-examination with a view to eliciting an answer implicating that witness in bad behaviour, which behaviour that party would be otherwise unable to prove, were infrequent and limited in scope.”
WLR Daily, 3rd June 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Al-Sweady and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2)  EWHC 2387 (Admin);  WLR (D) 292
“In any judicial review proceedings relating to a case which involved crucial, ‘hard-edged’ questions of fact in light of which it was necessary for the court to allow cross-examination of makers of witness statements on those ‘hard-edged’ questions of fact, it was vital for full disclosure to occur to enable effective and proper cross-examination to take place. That constituted an important exception to the conventional approach in respect of disclosure in judicial review cases and the approach should be similar to that involved in an ordinary Queen’s Bench action.”
WLR Daily, 5th October 2009
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The cross-examination of the four- year-old girl in the Baby Peter-related rape trial raised uncomfortable questions about how the justice system treats child witnesses.”
The Times, 2nd July 2009
“An independent review is underway into how Haringey Social Services dealt with the case of a two-year-old girl raped by a man convicted over Baby P’s death.”
The Times, 2nd May 2009
“Judges have undermined a law intended to stop defence lawyers cross-examining women in rape cases about their sexual history, by continuing to insist on their discretion to allow it, a new book discloses.”
The Guardian, 1st April 2008