M v R.

M v R.

The conditions of section 116 were circumvented as reasonable steps to secure the attendance of the complainant were not taken, and the admission of hearsay evidence under section 114(1)(d) was improper in these circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: M; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Fair Trial, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Fair Trial 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of hearsay evidence under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was proper where the requirements of section 116 were not met
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution took reasonable steps to secure the attendance of the complainant

Ratio Decidendi

The conditions of section 116 were circumvented as reasonable steps to secure the attendance of the complainant were not taken, and the admission of hearsay evidence under section 114(1)(d) was improper in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, conviction quashed, retrial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Leave for retrial granted