Nolan, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 464 (15th February, 2002)

Nolan, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 464 (15th February, 2002)

There was no breach of PACE Code D in failing to disclose that Mrs Swallow had only seen the suspect from the back, as the Code does not require the angle or opportunity of observation to be included in the first description; the identification parade was lawfully conducted; Mrs Swallow's evidence was properly admitted; Tsagane's written statements were properly admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and the judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Crim 464
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Anthony Nolan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace) Code D, Admissibility of Witness Statements, Fair Trial, Hearsay Evidence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Evidence Identification Evidence Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pace) Code D Admissibility of Witness Statements Fair Trial Hearsay Evidence Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Anthony Nolan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of PACE Code D in failing to disclose to the defence that a witness had only seen the suspect from the back before an identification parade
  2. 2 Whether the identification evidence of Mrs Swallow should have been excluded
  3. 3 Whether the written statements of a deceased witness (Tsagane) should have been admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of PACE Code D in failing to disclose that Mrs Swallow had only seen the suspect from the back, as the Code does not require the angle or opportunity of observation to be included in the first description; the identification parade was lawfully conducted; Mrs Swallow's evidence was properly admitted; Tsagane's written statements were properly admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and the judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Orders

  • Certification of a point of law of general public importance for potential appeal to the House of Lords: 'Where an eyewitness to an offence has asserted that he did not see the face of the culprit and the officer in charge of the investigation wishes that witness to view an identification parade, is there any...
  • Refusal of leave to appeal to the House of Lords.