Archive for the 'hearsay evidence' Category

Bonhoeffer QC: ‘unlawful’ to admit hearsay evidence – The Independent

“A key witness in a case involving allegations of child abuse against a celebrated children’s doctor is prepared to fly to London to give evidence at a General Medical Council hearing, a court heard today.”

Full story

The Independent, 8th April 2011

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Criminal law: use of hearsay evidence; professional conduct – Law Society’s Gazette

“The Supreme Court in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC14 has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that, in appropriate circumstances, the Crown may rely wholly or mainly on hearsay evidence to establish its case. The Court of Appeal had, however, emphasised the need to check the reliability of the hearsay evidence in such situations.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 11th February 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Regina v Horncastle and anotherl; Regina v Marquis and another – WLR Daily

Regina v Horncastle and anotherl; ReginaMarquis and another [2009] UKSC 14; [2009] WLR (D) 358

“Provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were observed, a defendant’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed art 6(3)(d) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, would not be infringed where his conviction was based solely or to a decisive extent on the written statement of an absent witness.”

WLR Daily, 10th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Horncastle; Regina v Blackmore; Regina v Marquis; Regina v Graham; Regina v Carter – Times Law Reports

Regina v Horncastle; Regina v Blackmore; Regina v Marquis; Regina v Graham; Regina v Carter

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“A criminal trial could be fair although the defence did not have the opportunity of examining every prosecution witness.”

The Times, 3rd June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

R v Horncastle and another; R v Marquis and another; R v Carter – WLR Daily

R v Horncastle and another; R v Marquis and another; R v Carter [2009] EWCA Crim 964; [2009] WLR (D) 173

“There would be no breach of art 6, and in particular art 6(3)(d), of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, if a criminal conviction were based solely or to a decisive degree on the evidence of an identified but absent witness, provided the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were observed.”

WLR Daily, 27th May 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Y (Hearsay evidence) – Times Law Reports

Regina v Y (Hearsay evidence)

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“Some rulings by trial judges could properly be described both as relating to counts on the indictment as well as being evidentiary.”

The Times, 11th March 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10 – WLR Daily

R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10; [2008] WLR (D) 15

“Many rulings made by trial judges could properly be described both as relating to ‘offences included in the indictment’ and as being evidentiary and as such came within the provisions of s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, allowing the Crown to appeal against them provided it agreed, pursuant to s 58(8), that if the appeal failed the defendant had to be acquitted.”

WLR Daily, 28th January 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


May 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Categories