DT, R. v

DT, R. v

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge admitted hearsay evidence without proper evidence that all reasonably practicable steps had been taken to locate the absent witness, as required by section 116(2)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: DT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Right to Confrontation, Criminal Justice Act 2003 S.116, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S.78
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Right to Confrontation Criminal Justice Act 2003 S.116 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S.78

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

DT

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence under section 116(2)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 without sufficient evidence that all reasonably practicable steps had been taken to find the absent witness

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge admitted hearsay evidence without proper evidence that all reasonably practicable steps had been taken to locate the absent witness, as required by section 116(2)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed.
  • Retrial ordered.