EED v R

EED v R

The hearsay statement of ML should not have been admitted under section 114(1)(d) as the interests of justice were better served by its exclusion; however, its admission did not render the trial unfair or affect the safety of the verdicts, as the jury's decision was based on the credibility of the complainants and not materially influenced by the hearsay evidence.

Parties
Appellant: EED; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admission of Evidence, Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Section 114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Evidence Admission of Evidence Fair Trial Sexual Offences Section 114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EED

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was in the interests of justice under Section 114(1)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003 to admit the hearsay statement of a witness who failed to attend for personal reasons not sufficient to engage Section 116 gateways.
  2. 2 Whether the admission of the hearsay evidence rendered the trial unfair and affected the safety of the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The hearsay statement of ML should not have been admitted under section 114(1)(d) as the interests of justice were better served by its exclusion; however, its admission did not render the trial unfair or affect the safety of the verdicts, as the jury's decision was based on the credibility of the complainants and not materially influenced by the hearsay evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed