MK, R v

The court held that the words spoken by Barski in the telephone call were not hearsay as they were merely an inquiry as to the availability and price of drugs, not a representation of fact or opinion intended to cause belief or action. Therefore, the evidence was admissible and the Recorder's ruling excluding it was wrong in law.

Parties: Applicant: Regina; Respondent: M. K.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 December 2007
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome: Appeal allowed; Recorder's ruling reversed; order for a fresh trial in the Crown Court.
Legal Topics: Hearsay Evidence, Implied Assertions, Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Implied Assertions Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Regina

Applicant

M. K.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Terminating Ruling Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

1 Whether words spoken by a third party in a telephone call, not in the immediate presence of the defendant and not made by a witness, are hearsay under section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and thus inadmissible unless a hearsay gateway is satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Recorder's ruling reversed; order for a fresh trial in the Crown Court.

Orders

A fresh trial to take place in the Crown Court.
Case to continue to be referred to as R v MK; no further reporting restrictions imposed.