Page1

Status:

Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment

R. v Horncastle (Michael Christopher) R. v Graham (Joseph David) R. v Marquis (Abijah) R. v Carter (David Michael) R. v Blackmore (David Lee)
Supreme Court 09 December 2009

Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2009] UKSC 14; [2010] 2 A.C. 373; [2010] 2 W.L.R. 47; [2010] 2 All E.R. 359; [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. 17; [2010] H.R.L.R. 12; [2010] U.K.H.R.R. 1; [2010] Crim. L.R. 496; (2009) 153(48) S.J.L.B. 32; Times, December 10, 2009; Official Transcript Subject: Criminal evidence Other related subjects: Human rights Keywords: European Court of Human Rights; Hearsay evidence; Right to fair trial Summary: The statutory regime relating to the admission of the evidence of an absent witness at a criminal trial did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 . Convention jurisprudence did not require the regime to be disapplied in favour of a rule that convictions based solely or decisively on such evidence were incompatible with art.6. Abstract: The appellants (H) appealed against a decision ( R. v Horncastle (Michael Christopher) [2009] EWCA Crim 964, [2009] 4 All E.R. 183 ) that they had received fair trials and their convictions were safe. H had been convicted after trials in which statements of witnesses who were not called to give evidence had been placed before the jury. In the first appeal, the witness had died but had made a statement before he died. In the second appeal, a witness had made a statement but had refused to attend trial because she was too frightened to give evidence. In each case, the statement was admitted pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.116 . H, relying on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (26766/05) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 1 , argued that their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on statements of witnesses whom they had had no chance of cross-examining, and therefore infringed the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1) and art.6(3)(d) . Appeals dismissed. The judgment of the ECtHR in Al-Khawaja was not to be treated as determinative of the success of the appeals. Although the requirement in the Human Rights Act 1998 s.2(1) to take into account the ECtHR jurisprudence normally resulted in the national courts applying principles clearly established by the ECtHR, there would be rare occasions, such as the instant case, when the Supreme Court would have concerns as to whether a decision of the ECtHR sufficiently appreciated particular aspects of domestic

Case Digest

Page2

process. In such circumstances the SC could decline to follow the ECtHR decision, giving reasons for adopting that course. The common law had, by the hearsay rule, addressed the aspect of a fair trial that art.6(3)(d) was designed to ensure, long before the Convention came into force. The continental procedure had not addressed that aspect. Parliament had enacted exceptions to the hearsay rule that were required in the interests of justice, including the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 , the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 , and the 2003 Act. The exceptions were not subject to the "sole or decisive" rule, since the regime enacted by Parliament contained safeguards that rendered that rule unnecessary. In particular, the 2003 Act contained a code intended to ensure that hearsay evidence was only admitted when it was fair that it should be. Hearsay was not made generally admissible by the code, but it made provision for a limited number of categories of admissible hearsay, and in s.124 , s.125 , and s.126 , established special stipulations to which hearsay evidence was subject. Article 6(3)(d) did not deal with the appropriate procedure where it was impossible to comply with art.6(3)(d). The ECtHR had recognised, prior to Al-Khawaja , that exceptions to art.6(3)(d) were required in the interests of justice, Grant v Queen, The [2006] UKPC 2, [2007] 1 A.C. 1 and Doorson v Netherlands (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 330 considered. It had also recognised that the admissibility of evidence was primarily a matter for national law, and that the fairness of a trial had to be assessed on a case by case basis, Kostovski v Netherlands (A/166) (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 434 considered. The manner in which it had approved the exceptions had resulted in a jurisprudence that lacked clarity. The sole or decisive rule had been introduced into the ECtHR jurisprudence in Doorson without discussion of the principle underlying it or full consideration of whether there was justification for imposing the rule as an overriding principle applicable equally to the continental and common law systems. The sole or decisive rule would create severe practical difficulties if applied to English criminal procedure. It raised the question of what was meant by decisive: any item of probative evidence might make all the difference between conviction and acquittal. It would often be impossible for an appeal court or the ECtHR to decide whether a particular statement was the sole or decisive basis of conviction. Not treating a particular piece of evidence as decisive would be a hard enough duty for a professional judge to discharge; a direction to a jury that they could regard a witness statement as supporting but not decisive evidence would involve them in mental gymnastics that few could perform. In any event, although English law did not include the sole or decisive rule it would, in almost all cases, have reached the same result in those cases where the ECtHR had invoked it. Al-Khawaja did not establish that it was necessary to apply the sole or decisive rule in England and Wales, Al-Khawaja considered. It had applied the rule in reliance on the ECtHR case law, but that case law had developed without full consideration of the safeguards against an unfair trial that existed under the common law procedure. If the rule was applied rigorously it would in some cases result in the acquittal, or failure to prosecute, defendants where there was cogent evidence of their guilt. That would be to the detriment of victims. Accordingly, it would not be right to hold that the sole or decisive rule should have been applied rather than the 2003 Act interpreted in accordance with its natural meaning. Judge: Lord Phillips, J.S.C.; Lady Hale, J.S.C.; Lord Brown, J.S.C.; Lord Mance, J.S.C.; Lord Neuberger, J.S.C.; Lord Kerr, J.S.C.; Lord Judge, J.S.C.

Page3

Counsel: For the first and second appellants: Tim Owen QC, John Gibson, Janet Reaney. For the third and fourth appellants: Shaun Smith QC, James Beck. For the respondent: David Perry QC, Louis Mably. Solicitor: For the appellants: Johnson Partnership. For the Crown: CPS.

Appellate History & Status

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) R. v Horncastle (Michael Christopher) [2009] EWCA Crim 964; [2009] 4 All E.R. 183; [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 15; (2009) 153(21) S.J.L.B. 28; Times, June 3, 2009; Official Transcript Affirmed Supreme Court R. v Horncastle (Michael Christopher) [2009] UKSC 14; [2010] 2 A.C. 373; [2010] 2 W.L.R. 47; [2010] 2 All E.R. 359; [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. 17; [2010] H.R.L.R. 12; [2010] U.K.H.R.R. 1; [2010] Crim. L.R. 496; (2009) 153(48) S.J.L.B. 32; Times, December 10, 2009; Official Transcript

Significant Cases Cited

Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (26766/05) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 1; 26 B.H.R.C. 249; [2009] Crim. L.R. 352; ECHR Grant v Queen, The [2006] UKPC 2; [2007] 1 A.C. 1; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 835; 20 B.H.R.C. 243; [2006] Crim. L.R. 837; Official Transcript; PC (Jam) Doorson v Netherlands (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 330; ECHR Kostovski v Netherlands (A/166) (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 434; Times, November 22, 1989; ECHR

All Cases Cited

Al-Saadoon v United Kingdom (Admissibility) (61498/08) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. SE11; ECHR Secretary of State for the Home Department v F [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 A.C. 269; [2009] 3 W.L.R. 74; [2009] 3 All E.R. 643; [2009] H.R.L.R. 26; [2009] U.K.H.R.R. 1177; 26 B.H.R.C. 738; (2009) 106(25) L.S.G. 14; Times, June 11, 2009; Official Transcript; HL R. v T (D) [2009] EWCA Crim 1213; (2009) 173 J.P. 425; (2009) 106(24) L.S.G. 20; Times, July 16, 2009; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Powar (Harbinder Singh) [2009] EWCA Crim 594; [2009] 2 Cr. App. R. 8; Times, April 24, 2009; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)

Page4

Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (26766/05) (2009) 49 E.H.R.R. 1; 26 B.H.R.C. 249; [2009] Crim. L.R. 352; ECHR R. v Mayers (Jordan) [2008] EWCA Crim 2989; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1915; [2009] 2 All E.R. 145; [2009] 1 Cr. App. R. 30; [2009] Crim. L.R. 272; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Davis (Iain) [2008] UKHL 36; [2008] 1 A.C. 1128; [2008] 3 W.L.R. 125; [2008] 3 All E.R. 461; [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. 33; [2008] H.R.L.R. 35; [2009] U.K.H.R.R. 302; 26 B.H.R.C. 183; [2008] Crim. L.R. 915; (2008) 105(26) L.S.G. 932; (2008) 158 N.L.J. 198; (2008) 152(25) S.J.L.B. 31; Times, June 19, 2008; Official Transcript; HL R. v Adams (Terrance) [2008] EWCA Crim 914; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 301; [2008] 4 All E.R. 574; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1683; [2008] 2 All E.R. 484; [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 34; (2009) 173 J.P. 442; [2008] Crim. L.R. 466; Times, March 11, 2008; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Adams (Ishmael) [2007] EWCA Crim 3025; [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 35; (2008) 172 J.P. 113; Times, December 14, 2007; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46; [2008] 1 A.C. 440; [2007] 3 W.L.R. 681; [2008] 1 All E.R. 657; [2008] H.R.L.R. 6; [2008] U.K.H.R.R. 119; [2008] Crim. L.R. 491; (2007) 157 N.L.J. 1577; (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 1437; Times, November 6, 2007; Official Transcript; HL R. v Cole (Konrad) [2007] EWCA Crim 1924; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2716; [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 5; Times, October 2, 2007; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v McLean (Richard) [2007] EWCA Crim 219; [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 11; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Nelson (Ashley George) [2006] EWCA Crim 3412; [2007] Crim. L.R. 709; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Doherty (Michael Patrick) [2006] EWCA Crim 2716; (2007) 171 J.P. 79; (2007) 171 J.P.N. 346; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Davies (Anita Elizabeth) [2006] EWCA Crim 2643; [2007] 2 All E.R. 1070; (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 1288; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] UKHL 10; [2006] 2 A.C. 465; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 570; [2006] 4 All E.R. 128; [2006] 2 F.C.R. 20; [2006] H.R.L.R. 17; [2006]

Page5

U.K.H.R.R. 640; 20 B.H.R.C. 33; [2006] H.L.R. 22; [2006] B.L.G.R. 323; [2006] 2 P. & C.R. 25; [2006] L. & T.R. 8; [2006] 11 E.G. 194 (C.S.); (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 365; [2006] N.P.C. 29; Times, March 10, 2006; Independent, March 14, 2006; Official Transcript; HL R. v Tahery (Alireza) [2006] EWCA Crim 529; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Grant v Queen, The [2006] UKPC 2; [2007] 1 A.C. 1; [2006] 2 W.L.R. 835; 20 B.H.R.C. 243; [2006] Crim. L.R. 837; Official Transcript; PC (Jam) R. v Al-Khawaja (Imad) [2005] EWCA Crim 2697; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1078; [2006] 1 All E.R. 543; [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. 9; Times, November 15, 2005; Independent, November 9, 2005; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Sellick (Santino) [2005] EWCA Crim 651; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3257; [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 15; [2005] Crim. L.R. 722; (2005) 102(19) L.S.G. 33; Times, March 22, 2005; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. (on the application of D) v Camberwell Green Youth Court [2005] UKHL 4; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 393; [2005] 1 All E.R. 999; [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 1; (2005) 169 J.P. 105; [2005] 1 F.C.R. 365; [2005] H.R.L.R. 9; [2005] U.K.H.R.R. 302; 17 B.H.R.C. 625; [2005] Crim. L.R. 497; (2005) 169 J.P.N. 257; (2005) 102(13) L.S.G. 27; (2005) 149 S.J.L.B. 146; Times, February 1, 2005; Official Transcript; HL R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26; [2004] 2 A.C. 323; [2004] 3 W.L.R. 23; [2004] 3 All E.R. 785; [2004] H.R.L.R. 33; [2004] U.K.H.R.R. 995; [2004] Imm. A.R. 419; [2004] I.N.L.R. 381; (2004) 101(28) L.S.G. 33; (2004) 154 N.L.J. 985; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 762; Times, June 18, 2004; Independent, June 22, 2004; Official Transcript; HL R. v Greenwood (Andrew Philip) [2004] EWCA Crim 1388; [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 7; [2005] Crim. L.R. 59; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 788; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Arnold (Kenneth) [2004] EWCA Crim 1293; [2005] Crim. L.R. 56; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 660; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v H [2003] EWCA Crim 2847; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 3006; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 17; (2003) 100(43) L.S.G. 31; Times, October 24, 2003; Independent, November 14, 2003; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v Simpson (Ian McDonald) [2003] EWCA Crim 1499; [2004] Q.B. 118; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 337; [2003] 3 All E.R. 531; [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 36; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 24; [2003] Crim. L.R. 652; (2003) 100(27) L.S.G. 34; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 694; Times, May 26, 2003; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) R. v M (Witness Statement) [2003] EWCA Crim 357; [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 21; Times, May 2, 2003; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)

Page6

SN v Sweden (34209/96) (2004) 39 E.H.R.R. 13; [2002] Crim. L.R. 831; ECHR R. v Littlechild (Andrew) [2002] EWCA Crim 1784; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Sadak v Turkey (25144/94) (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 23; ECHR PS v Germany (33900/96) (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 61; [2002] Crim. L.R. 312; ECHR R. v Pendleton (Donald) [2001] UKHL 66; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 72; [2002] 1 All E.R. 524; [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 34; [2002] Crim. L.R. 398; (2002) 99(7) L.S.G. 34; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 20; Times, December 17, 2001; Independent, December 19, 2001; Daily Telegraph, December 20, 2001; Official Transcript; HL R. v H (Witness Reprisals) [2001] Crim. L.R. 815; Times, July 6, 2001; CA (Crim Div) R. v A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2001] UKHL 25; [2002] 1 A.C. 45; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1546; [2001] 3 All E.R. 1; [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 21; (2001) 165 J.P. 609; [2001] H.R.L.R. 48; [2001] U.K.H.R.R. 825; 11 B.H.R.C. 225; [2001] Crim. L.R. 908; (2001) 165 J.P.N. 750; Times, May 24, 2001; Independent, May 22, 2001; Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2001; Official Transcript; HL R. (on the application of Holding & Barnes Plc) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23; [2003] 2 A.C. 295; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1389; [2001] 2 All E.R. 929; [2002] Env. L.R. 12; [2001] H.R.L.R. 45; [2001] U.K.H.R.R. 728; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 38; (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 40; [2001] 2 P.L.R. 76; [2001] J.P.L. 920; [2001] 20 E.G. 228 (C.S.); (2001) 98(24) L.S.G. 45; (2001) 151 N.L.J. 727; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 140; [2001] N.P.C. 90; Times, May 10, 2001; Independent, June 25, 2001; Daily Telegraph, May 15, 2001; Official Transcript; HL Luca v Italy (33354/96) (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 46; [2001] Crim. L.R. 747; ECHR R. v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) [2001] 1 A.C. 473; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1; [2001] 1 All E.R. 686; [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. 31; (2001) 165 J.P. 61; [2001] Crim. L.R. 649; (2001) 165 J.P.N. 664; (2001) 98(8) L.S.G. 43; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 44; Times, December 19, 2000; Independent, December 21, 2000; Official Transcript; HL Brown v Stott [2003] 1 A.C. 681; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 817; [2001] 2 All E.R. 97; 2001 S.C. (P.C.) 43; 2001 S.L.T. 59; 2001 S.C.C.R. 62; [2001] R.T.R. 11; [2001] H.R.L.R. 9; [2001] U.K.H.R.R. 333; 11 B.H.R.C. 179; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 24; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 100; 2000 G.W.D. 40-1513; Times, December 6, 2000; Independent, February 7, 2001; Official Transcript; PC (Sc)

Page7

Van Mechelen v Netherlands (Art.6) (1998) 25 E.H.R.R. 647; 2 B.H.R.C. 486; ECHR Saunders v United Kingdom (19187/91) [1997] B.C.C. 872; [1998] 1 B.C.L.C. 362; (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 313; 2 B.H.R.C. 358; Times, December 18, 1996; Independent, January 14, 1997; ECHR Ferrantelli v Italy (19874/92) (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 288; ECHR Doorson v Netherlands (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 330; ECHR R. v Martin (David) [1996] Crim. L.R. 589; CA (Crim Div) Saidi v France (A/261-C) (1994) 17 E.H.R.R. 251; ECHR X v United Kingdom (20657/92) (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. CD113; Eur Comm HR Edwards v United Kingdom (13071/87) (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 417; Times, January 21, 1993; ECHR Ludi v Switzerland (A/238) (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 173; Times, August 13, 1992; Guardian, July 15, 1992; ECHR Asch v Austria (A/203A) (1993) 15 E.H.R.R. 597; ECHR Fox v United Kingdom (A/202) (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 108; ECHR Delta v France (A/191A) (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 574; Times, March 6, 1991; ECHR Windisch v Austria (A/186) (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 281; ECHR R. v Acton Justices Ex p. McMullen (1991) 92 Cr. App. R. 98; (1990) 154 J.P. 901; (1990) 154 J.P.N. 563; Independent, May 4, 1990; QBD Kostovski v Netherlands (A/166) (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 434; Times, November 22, 1989; ECHR Bricmont v Belgium (A/158) (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 217; ECHR Scott (Richard) v Queen, The [1989] A.C. 1242; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 924; [1989] 2 All E.R. 305; (1989) 89 Cr. App. R. 153; [1989] Crim. L.R. 820; (1989) 86(23) L.S.G. 40; (1989) 133 S.J. 421; PC (Jam)

Page8

Barbera v Spain (A/146) (1989) 11 E.H.R.R. 360; ECHR R. v Andrews (Donald Joseph) [1987] A.C. 281; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 413; [1987] 1 All E.R. 513; (1987) 84 Cr. App. R. 382; [1987] Crim. L.R. 487; (1987) 151 J.P.N. 254; HL Barbera v Spain (A/146) (1987) 9 E.H.R.R. CD101; Eur Comm HR Unterpertinger v Austria (A/110) (1991) 13 E.H.R.R. 175; Times, December 10, 1986; ECHR Axen v Germany (A/72) (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 195; ECHR R. v Galbraith (George Charles) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039; [1981] 2 All E.R. 1060; (1981) 73 Cr. App. R. 124; [1981] Crim. L.R. 648; (1981) 125 S.J. 442; CA (Crim Div) Myers (James William) v DPP [1965] A.C. 1001; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 145; [1964] 2 All E.R. 881; (1964) 48 Cr. App. R. 348; (1964) 128 J.P. 481; (1964) 108 S.J. 519; HL Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 W.L.R. 965; (1956) 100 S.J. 566; PC (FMS)

Key Cases Citing

Applied R. v Freeman (Julian John) [2010] EWCA Crim 1997; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Followed R. v Ford (Kamahl) [2010] EWCA Crim 2250; [2011] Crim. L.R. 475; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Considered R. (on the application of Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin); DC

All Cases Citing

Mentioned by R. v Davis (Iain Lawrence) [2011] EWCA Crim 2156; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by Al-Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 388; (2011) 108(30) L.S.G. 23; Times, July 15, 2011; Official Transcript; SC Considered R. (on the application of Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council

Page9

[2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin); DC Mentioned by OOO v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 1246 (QB); Official Transcript; QBD Mentioned by McCaughey's Application for Judicial Review, Re [2011] UKSC 20; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 1279; (2011) 155(20) S.J.L.B. 35; Times, May 20, 2011; Official Transcript; SC Mentioned by Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 220; [2011] 2 All E.R. 586; (2011) 155(6) S.J.L.B. 31; [2011] N.P.C. 16; Official Transcript; SC Mentioned by Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2010] 3 W.L.R. 1441; [2011] P.T.S.R. 61; [2011] 1 All E.R. 285; [2011] H.R.L.R. 3; [2010] U.K.H.R.R. 1213; [2011] H.L.R. 7; [2010] B.L.G.R. 909; [2011] L. & T.R. 2; [2010] 3 E.G.L.R. 113; [2010] 45 E.G. 93 (C.S.); (2010) 107(44) L.S.G. 16; (2011) 108(8) L.S.G. 20; (2010) 154(42) S.J.L.B. 30; [2010] N.P.C. 109; Times, November 4, 2010; Official Transcript; SC Mentioned by Cadder (Peter) v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2601; 2010 S.L.T. 1125; 2010 S.C.L. 1265; 2010 S.C.C.R. 951; [2011] H.R.L.R. 1; [2010] U.K.H.R.R. 1171; 30 B.H.R.C. 257; (2010) 107(43) L.S.G. 21; (2010) 154(41) S.J.L.B. 30; Times, October 28, 2010; Official Transcript; SC Followed R. v Ford (Kamahl) [2010] EWCA Crim 2250; [2011] Crim. L.R. 475; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by R. v Evans (Duncan) [2010] EWCA Crim 2516; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by R. v Khan (Shafiq) [2010] EWCA Crim 1692; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by R. (on the application of Gaunt) v Office of Communications (OFCOM) [2010] EWHC 1756 (Admin); [2011] 1 W.L.R. 663; [2010] H.R.L.R. 31; [2011] A.C.D. 17; Official Transcript; DC Mentioned by

Page10

Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association Ltd (Poplar Harca) v Howe [2010] EWHC 1745 (QB); Official Transcript; QBD Applied R. v Freeman (Julian John) [2010] EWCA Crim 1997; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by R. v ED [2010] EWCA Crim 1213; (2010) 174 J.P. 289; [2010] Crim. L.R. 862; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by R. (on the application of F) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17; [2011] 1 A.C. 331; [2010] 2 W.L.R. 992; [2010] 2 All E.R. 707; [2010] H.R.L.R. 23; [2010] U.K.H.R.R. 809; 29 B.H.R.C. 308; (2010) 113 B.M.L.R. 209; (2010) 154(16) S.J.L.B. 27; Times, April 22, 2010; Official Transcript; SC Mentioned by W (Children) (Family Proceedings: Evidence), Re [2010] UKSC 12; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 701; [2010] P.T.S.R. 775; [2010] 2 All E.R. 418; [2010] 1 F.L.R. 1485; [2010] 1 F.C.R. 615; [2010] H.R.L.R. 22; [2010] Fam. Law 449; (2010) 107(11) L.S.G. 15; (2010) 160 N.L.J. 389; (2010) 154(9) S.J.L.B. 28; Times, March 8, 2010; Official Transcript; SC Mentioned by R. v Chan (Raymond Wai Meng) [2010] EWCA Crim 272; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by W (Children) (Family Proceedings: Evidence), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 57; [2010] 2 F.L.R. 256; [2010] 1 F.C.R. 365; [2010] Fam. Law 447; (2010) 154(7) S.J.L.B. 37; Official Transcript; CA (Civ Div) Mentioned by R. v Chisholm (John) [2010] EWCA Crim 258; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div) Mentioned by Chief Constable of Cleveland v Haggas [2009] EWHC 3231 (Admin); [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2512; [2010] 3 All E.R. 506; (2010) 174 J.P. 132; Official Transcript; QBD (Admin)

Significant Legislation Cited

Criminal Evidence Act 1965 (c.20) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.124

Page11

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.125 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.126 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(3)(d) Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.2(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60)

Legislation Cited

Australian Evidence Act 1995 Civil Evidence Act 1968 (c.64) Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c.38) Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c.38) s.59(1) Code of Criminal Procedure art.317 Committee of Ministers Resolution HR 258/1999 of 15 April Committee of Ministers Resolution HR 99/258 of 15 April Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4) Part 3 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19) s.23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19) s.33(2) Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.3 Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.3(2) Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.4 Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.4(6) Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.5 Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 (c.15) s.5(2) Criminal Evidence Act 1965 (c.20) Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) s.23 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) s.26 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) art.6(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) para.77 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.100 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.114 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.114(2)

Page12

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(2)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.116(5) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.117 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.117(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.117(5) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.118 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.119 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.121 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.121(1)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.123 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.124 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.125 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.125(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.126 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.127 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.128 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.129 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) s.129(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.3 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.43(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.43(2) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6(3) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.6(3)(d)

Page13

European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1) European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(3)(d) European Convention on Human Rights art.8 Evidence Act 1995 Evidence Act 1995 s.59(1) Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 s.3 Evidence Amendment Act (No.2) 1980 Evidence Amendment Act (No.2) 1980 s.18 Evidence Amendment Act (No.2) 1980 s.19 Evidence Amendment Act (No.2) 1980 s.3 Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) Sch.1 Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) art.6(3) Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.2 Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.2(1) Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.2(1)(a) Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.3 Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42) s.6 Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c.100) s.18 Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c.100) s.19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) s.78(1) Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37) s.1(1)(b) Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37) s.78 Recommendation 97/13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation No R 13/1997 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) s.22 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) s.16 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) s.17 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) s.18

Page14

Journal Articles

Evidence: hearsay evidence - anonymous witness Anonymity; Criminal evidence; Hearsay evidence; Witnesses. Crim. L.R. 2011, 6, 475-479 Confrontation: the defiance of the English courts Criminal evidence; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses; Witness statements. E. & P. 2011, 15(2), 93-116 Supreme error Admissibility; Admissions; Police interviews; Right of access to legal advice; Right to fair trial; Scotland. Edin. L.R. 2011, 15(2), 276-287 Exceptionalism and internationalism in the Supreme Court: Horncastle and Cadder Common law; European Court of Human Rights; Right of access to legal advice; Right to fair trial; Scotland; Supreme Court. P.L. 2011, Jul, 475-482 Squaring up to Strasbourg: Horncastle in the Supreme Court Compatibility; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses. Arch. Rev. 2010, 1, 6-9 The right to confront witnesses: meanings, myths and human rights Criminal procedure; Cross-examination; Right to examine witnesses. Crim. L.R. 2010, 4, 255-274 R. v Horncastle and others: evidence - admission at trial of written statement of witness who has died Admissibility; Criminal evidence; European Court of Human Rights; Hearsay evidence; Right to fair trial; Witness statements. Crim. L.R. 2010, 6, 496-502 R. v Horncastle: hearsay - United Kingdom Admissibility; Anonymity; Hearsay evidence; Right to fair trial; Unsafe convictions. E. & P. 2010, 14(2), 176-179 Absent witnesses and the UK Supreme Court: judicial deference as judicial dialogue? Admissibility; Hearsay evidence; Judicial decision-making; Right to fair trial. E. & P. 2010, 14(3), 208-231 A political judgment? Reconciling hearsay and the right to challenge Admissibility; Hearsay evidence; Parliamentary proceedings; Politics; Right to fair trial. E. & P. 2010, 14(3), 232-252 Sole or decisive hearsay evidence

Page15

Hearsay evidence; Right to fair trial. J. Crim. L. 2010, 74(2), 109-112 "Free to lead as well as to be led": section 2 of the Human Rights Act and the relationship between the UK courts and Strasbourg Bill of Rights; European Court of Human Rights; Human rights; Precedent. J.J. 2010, 7(1), 22-73 Public law in the Supreme Court 2009-2010 Administrative law. J.R. 2010, 15(4), 299-322 Strasbourg rebuff Admissibility; Criminal evidence; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses. L. Ex. 2010, Dec, 40-41 Doing it by numbers Deceased persons; Right to examine witnesses; Witness statements; Witnesses. L. Ex. 2010, Feb, 12 Criminal law (February) Adjournment; Admissibility; Bad character; Criminal procedure; Hearsay evidence; Incitement; Terrorist offences. L.S.G. 2010, 107(6), 16-18 Special advocates, control orders and the right to a fair trial Closed material; Control orders; National security; Right to fair trial; Separation of powers; Special advocates; Suspects; Terrorists. M.L.R. 2010, 73(5), 836-857 When Strasbourg speaks Admissibility; Criminal evidence; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses. N.L.J. 2010, 160(7408), 377-378 R. v Horncastle (Michael Christopher): section 2 of the HRA 1998 and article 6: hearsay evidence Criminal procedure; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses; Right to fair trial. P.L. 2010, Apr, 396-397 A fair trial? Admissibility; Criminal evidence; Hearsay evidence; Right to examine witnesses. Soc. L. 2010, 54(Mar), 18-19 "Sole" or "decisive" not the test Admissibility; European Court of Human Rights; Hearsay evidence; Jurisdiction; Precedent; Right to fair trial.

Page16

C.L. & J. 2009, 173(51/52), 814 The conversation between Strasbourg and national courts dialogue or dictation? Case law; European Court of Human Rights; Precedent. Irish Jurist 2009, 44, 1-12 Supreme Court warns Strasbourg on impact of overturning hearsay rules Admissibility; Convictions; Deceased persons; Hearsay evidence; Right to fair trial; Witness statements. S.J. 2009, 153(47), 4

Books

Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2012 Ed. Chapter: Chapter 11 - Hearsay Evidence Documents: Section A. - Criminal Justice Act 2003 Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2012 Ed. Chapter: Chapter 16 - Human Rights Documents: Section B. - Procedure Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2012 Ed. Chapter: Chapter 16 - Human Rights Documents: Section B. - The Interpretation of Convention Rights Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice 2012 Ed. Chapter: Chapter 16 - Human Rights Documents: Section E. - Right to a Fair Trial Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction Documents: Sub-section (vi) - Examination and adducing of witnesses (article 6(3)(d)) Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction Documents: Sub-section (xi) - Hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 12 - Rules of Evidence Relating to the Course of a Trial: Examination of Witnesses Documents: Sub-section (9) - Death or illness before cross-examination Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Section 2 - Definitions of Hearsay

Page17

Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Section 3 - Justifications for the Hearsay Rule Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Sub-section (f) - Digital (Electronic) Evidence and other mechanically produced records Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (iii) - Reasons for unavailability that result in admissibility of an out-of-court statement without leave Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (iv) - Unavailability that result in admissibility of an out-of-court statement with leave: declarant does not give evidence through fear Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Section 12 - Inclusionary Discretion Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (a) - Discretionary exclusion of prima facie admissible hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (b) - Stopping case because of unconvincing hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (c) - Warning the jury Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. Incorporating First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Section 17 - Hearsay and the European Convention on Human Rights Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction Documents: Sub-section (vi) - Examination and adducing of witnesses (article 6(3)(d))

Page18

Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction Documents: Sub-section (xi) - Hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 12 - Rules of Evidence Relating to the Course of a Trial: Examination of Witnesses Documents: Sub-section (9) - Death or illness before cross-examination Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Section 2. - Definitions of Hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Section 3. - Justifications For the Hearsay Rule Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 28 - The Rule Against Hearsay Documents: Sub-section (f) - Digital (Electronic) Evidence and other mechanically produced records Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (iii) - Reasons for unavailability that result in admissibility of an out-of-court statement without leave Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (iv) - Unavailability that result in admissibility of an out-of-court statement with leave: declarant does not give evidence through fear Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Section 12. - Inclusionary Discretion Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (a) - Discretionary exclusion of prima facie admissible hearsay Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (b) - Stopping case because of unconvincing hearsay

Page19

Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Sub-section (c) - Warning the jury Phipson on Evidence 17th Ed. First Supplement Chapter: Chapter 30 - Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings Documents: Section 17. - Hearsay and the European Convention on Human Rights Renton and Brown Criminal Procedure (6th edition) from W Green & Son Ltd Chapter: Part III - Charges and Preliminary Defences Documents: The Human Rights Act: 9-26.3 to 9-26.6 Renton and Brown Criminal Procedure (6th edition) from W Green & Son Ltd Chapter: Part III - Charges and Preliminary Defences Documents: The Convention rights: 9-26.7 to 9-26.15 Renton and Brown Criminal Procedure (6th edition) from W Green & Son Ltd Chapter: Part VIII - Evidence Documents: The effect of section 259 of the 1995 Act: 24-130 to 24-130.2 White Book 2011 Chapter: Section 3 - Other Proceedings Documents: Section 2-Interpretation of Convention rights

2012 Sweet & Maxwell