Director of Public Prosecutions v R

Director of Public Prosecutions v R

The magistrates were correct to admit and assess the complainant's video interview, to exclude the defendant's interview as unreliable due to his severe handicap and suggestibility, and to acquit because they could not be sure of guilt on the available evidence. Loss of memory does not equate to incompetence, and the statutory tests for competence and admissibility were properly applied, albeit by a slightly erroneous route.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Acquittal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld
Legal Topics
Competence of Witnesses, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Special Measures, Mental Incapacity, Section 78 PACE, Section 53 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Criminal Law Evidence Competence of Witnesses Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Special Measures Mental Incapacity Section 78 PACE +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

R

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From Magistrates' Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether competence of a witness must be considered at both the time of interview and at trial
  2. 2 Whether loss of memory equates to incompetence under section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
  3. 3 Whether incompetence under section 53 equates to unfitness under section 116(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrates were correct to admit and assess the complainant's video interview, to exclude the defendant's interview as unreliable due to his severe handicap and suggestibility, and to acquit because they could not be sure of guilt on the available evidence. Loss of memory does not equate to incompetence, and the statutory tests for competence and admissibility were properly applied, albeit by a slightly erroneous route.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order for detailed assessment and legal aid funding