Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Assault and burglary convictions upheld despite witness withdrawal and refusal to testify
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of two individuals convicted by the Circuit Court of assault causing serious harm, assault causing harm, aggravated burglary, and false imprisonment, following a violent attack over missing drugs. The appellants challenged the admissibility of the primary witness's statements, arguing they were unreliable and that the witness was not available for cross-examination due to her refusal to testify and subsequent wish to withdraw her complaints. The Court found the statements were properly admitted, as the trial judge had thoroughly considered their voluntariness, reliability, and the fairness of admitting them, allowing the jury to determine their weight in light of later psychiatric evidence. Additional grounds of appeal concerning telephone evidence and the sufficiency of particulars on certain charges were also rejected. The convictions were therefore upheld.
appeal against conviction – admission of witness statements – circuit court conviction – assault causing serious harm – aggravated burglary – false imprisonment – reliability of evidence – voluntariness – right to cross-examination – Section 16 Criminal Justice Act 2006 – fair trial rights – telephone data evidence – particulars of indictment – European Convention on Human Rights – jury directions
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
