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
In calculating the time to be served pursuant to an order under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.116, justice required account to be taken of time spent in prison between recall to custody to serve the balance of a licence period for a previous offence and sentencing for a new offence committed while on licence.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED EXTENDED SENTENCES INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN OFFENDING ON LICENCE ORDER UNDER S.116 POWERS OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 PERIOD BETWEEN RECALL TO CUSTODY AND SENTENCING FOR NEW OFFENCE POSSESSION OF EXTREME PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.116 RETURN TO CUSTODY s.116(1) s.116(2) s.116(2)(a) s.116(6)(b) s.85 s.85(1) SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING SENTENCING POWERS
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)
The judge had been wrong to admit documents, prepared by police officers, giving details of methods used in the commission of offences of which the appellant had been previously convicted, but the appellant’s convictions for the instant offences were nevertheless safe. It was important that the formal procedures referred to in R. v Hanson (Nicky) (2005) EWCA Crim 824 , (2005) 1 W.L.R. 3169 were followed.
ADMISSIBILITY ADMISSIBILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT OFFENCES RETRIEVED FROM POLICE COMPUTER SYSTEM AGREEMENTS AS TO RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS CASE MANAGEMENT COMPLAINANTS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.117 CRIMINAL LAW METHODS USED POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 s.73 PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS PROPENSITY RELEVANT SEXUAL OFFENCES REQUIREMENT FOR STATEMENT BY PREVIOUS COMPLAINANT OF SEXUAL OFFENCE s.101 s.101(1)(d) s.101(d) s.103 s.103(1) s.103(1)(a) s.114(1) s.116(2) S.116(2) CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 S.117 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 s.117(1) s.117(1)(a) s.2(b) SEXUAL ASSAULTS SEXUAL OFFENCES VICTIMS WITNESS STATEMENTS
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.