Horncastle & Ors v R.

Horncastle & Ors v R.

The admission of hearsay evidence as sole or decisive evidence does not, by itself, render a trial unfair or the conviction unsafe under Article 6(3)(d) ECHR, provided the statutory safeguards in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are properly applied, the evidence is reliable, and the rights of the defence are...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Christopher Horncastle; Appellant: David Lee Blackmore; Appellant: Abijah Marquis; Appellant: Joseph David Graham; Appellant: David Michael Carter; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court
Outcome
Appeals by Horncastle, Blackmore, Marquis, and Graham against conviction dismissed; Carter's appeal against conviction allowed; appeals against sentence by Horncastle and Blackmore refused.
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Witnesses in Fear, Business Records as Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Human Rights Law Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Right to Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Witnesses in Fear +1 more

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Christopher Horncastle

Appellant

David Lee Blackmore

Appellant

Abijah Marquis

Appellant

Joseph David Graham

Appellant

David Michael Carter

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Crown Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the admission of hearsay evidence as sole or decisive evidence violates Article 6(3)(d) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the statutory code under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is compatible with the ECHR
  3. 3 Whether statements of unavailable witnesses (dead, in fear, or absent) can be admitted as evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The admission of hearsay evidence as sole or decisive evidence does not, by itself, render a trial unfair or the conviction unsafe under Article 6(3)(d) ECHR, provided the statutory safeguards in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are properly applied, the evidence is reliable, and the rights of the defence are respected. The statutory code is compatible with the ECHR, and the trial judges did not err in their application of the law.

Court Disposition

Appeals by Horncastle, Blackmore, Marquis, and Graham against conviction dismissed; Carter's appeal against conviction allowed; appeals against sentence by Horncastle and Blackmore refused.

Orders

  • Convictions of Horncastle, Blackmore, Marquis, and Graham upheld.
  • Carter's conviction quashed.