||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 200 (May)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Waller LJ, Owen and Fulford JJ
||Stephen Solley QC and Alexander Dos Santos (instructed by Paul Martin & Co) for the defendants.
||Timothy Raggatt QC and Jonathan Salmon (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||13 May 2005
Criminal evidence and procedure - Evidence - Hearsay - Exceptions - Documentary evidence - Witness refusing to attend through fear - Position where witness' evidence decisive - Admissibility of statement - Right to fair trial - European Convention on Human Rights, art 6 - , s 23.
Following dismissal of the defendants' appeal against conviction (see ), the court refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but certified that two questions of law of general public importance was involved in the decision, namely: (1) Where a court determines that a witness does not attend court through fear caused by a defendant or on his behalf, is the defendant still entitled to rely upon the guarantees in art6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights?' and (2) 'Where a defendant has not had the opportunity to test a witness's evidence at any stage prior to trial and the witness does not then attend the trial, can the defendant have a fair trial, within the meaning of art6 of the Convention, where the evidence was read out to the jury and could be described as substantial or decisive against the defendant?'.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary