A Crown Court judge presiding over a retrial had been wrong to designate a pre-trial hearing as a preparatory hearing, and so the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the defendants’ interlocutory appeal against his ruling that the complainant’s police interview and cross-examination at the original trial could be admitted as hearsay evidence at the retrial.
ADMISSIBILITY COMPLAINANT’S REFUSAL TO ATTEND RETRIAL COMPLEXITY CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114(1)(d) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996 s.29 DESIGNATION AS PREPARATORY HEARING HEARSAY EVIDENCE JURISDICTION PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS PREPARATORY HEARINGS RULING AT HEARING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINANT’S EARLIER EVIDENCE AS HEARSAY s.114 s.114(2) s.114(2)(g) s.116 s.116(2) s.116(2)(b) s.116(2)(e) s.13(1) s.1311(1)(c) s.29(1) s.3(5) s.31 s.35(1) s.40 s.40(4) s.91(1) SERIOUSNESS AND LIKELY LENGTH OF TRIAL SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SEXUAL OFFENCES
Convictions for rape and indecent assault were quashed where the Crown’s reliance on hearsay evidence of bad character in the form of statements containing allegations of rape had circumvented the restrictions on hearsay evidence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY UNDER S.114 AND S.116 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 BAD CHARACTER CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.114(1)(d) HEARSAY EVIDENCE HEARSAY EVIDENCE CONTAINING UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT Part 2 PREJUDICE RAPE s.101 s.114(1) s.114(2) s.114(2)(g) s.116 s.116(1) s.116(2) s.116(2)(a) s.116(2)(e) s.116(4) s.116(4)(b) s.9(8)