Adbulle, R v

Adbulle, R v

The trial judge was entitled to admit the second ABE interview of RK as hearsay evidence under section 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having properly considered the assurance given to the witness, the reliability of the evidence, the presence of other corroborative evidence, and the interests of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Ayanle Abdulle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admission of Evidence, Violent Disorder, Witness Fear, Section 116 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Admission of Evidence Violent Disorder Witness Fear Section 116 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Ayanle Abdulle

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the second ABE interview of RK as hearsay evidence under section 116(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 despite police assurances to the witness that he would not be called to give evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge's summing-up was deficient for failing to highlight that the second ABE interview was not given on oath

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to admit the second ABE interview of RK as hearsay evidence under section 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, having properly considered the assurance given to the witness, the reliability of the evidence, the presence of other corroborative evidence, and the interests of justice. The assurance did not render the evidence inadmissible or inherently unreliable, and the summing-up was fair and thorough. The conviction was safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld