R, M & L, R v

R, M & L, R v

The case did not meet the statutory requirements for a Preparatory Hearing as it was not of sufficient complexity, seriousness, or length. Therefore, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Additionally, the judge's ruling to admit hearsay evidence was flawed because not all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the attendance of the witness, and the effect of the Crown's letter neutralised the judge's efforts. The ruling on hearsay evidence must be revisited at the time of retrial based on the witness's availability then.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellants: R, M & L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Crown Court Preparatory Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Preparatory Hearings, Witness Availability, Sexual Offences, Retrial Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Hearsay Evidence Preparatory Hearings Witness Availability Sexual Offences Retrial Procedure

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

R, M & L

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Crown Court Preparatory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing was correctly designated as a Preparatory Hearing under Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the judge's ruling to admit hearsay evidence under Section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The case did not meet the statutory requirements for a Preparatory Hearing as it was not of sufficient complexity, seriousness, or length. Therefore, the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Additionally, the judge's ruling to admit hearsay evidence was flawed because not all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the attendance of the witness, and the effect of the Crown's letter neutralised the judge's efforts. The ruling on hearsay evidence must be revisited at the time of retrial based on the witness's availability then.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction